1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation shall be dismissed;

2...

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to the Deceased on or around December 2005, KRW 25 million on or around April 2006, and KRW 95 million on or around August 2007, respectively, at 10% of each interest month.

After that, on February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 200 million won to the Plaintiff at 10% per month interest on the principal and interest of each of the above loans with the Deceased and each of the above loans, until August 31, 2010, and received the instant loan certificate from the Deceased.

However, since the deceased died without paying the above KRW 200 million to the plaintiff, the defendant, who is the sole heir of the deceased, is obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the plaintiff and interest thereon.

B. Although the Plaintiff did not lend money to the Deceased, the Plaintiff, who was living together with the Deceased, forged the instant loan certificate using the seal imprint of the Deceased who stolen after the Deceased’s death.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence as above, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 34, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23 through 27, 30, 36 through 39, 42, and 48 (including a serial number) and the overall purport of the film and pleading, it is reasonable to deem that Gap or Eul used the deceased's seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, and certificate of personal seal after he was admitted to the hospital or after he died, and therefore, the loan certificate of this case cannot be used as evidence, nor can it be acknowledged that there was any establishment of a monetary relationship and the existence thereof, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff borrowed money from the deceased.