1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The expenses of filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the account of C by depositing the said KRW 20 million into the account of C.

On December 8, 2010, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 20 million and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

B. On December 8, 2010, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff on the day, and prepared a loan certificate as the Plaintiff did not pay the money, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff did not transfer money at all.

The plaintiff did not know that he paid money to C.

2. Facts of recognition and judgment

A. 1) On December 8, 2010, the Defendant prepared and delivered a certificate of the borrowing of money (Evidence A No. 1) to the Plaintiff. 2) The said certificate of the borrowing of money contains the content that “the Defendant, who is the debtor, borrowed KRW 20 million. The principal will be repaid by not later than December 31, 201.”

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff wired KRW 20 million to C’s account on October 6, 2010. (b) In the event that the authenticity of the instrument is recognized, the existence of a legal act that forms the content should be recognized, barring any special circumstances where the existence and content of the declaration of intent indicated in the document is evident and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu16505 delivered on March 23, 1990 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da30839 delivered on September 8, 2006, etc.). The facts of recognition 2 are examined in light of the above legal principles.

The above monetary loan certificate is a disposition document to the effect that "the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the plaintiff, and thus, he/she would pay to the plaintiff KRW 20 million until December 31, 201," and there is no dispute between the parties as to the authenticity of the above monetary loan certificate.

On the other hand, according to Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant left the Republic of Korea on December 9, 2010, which is the day following the preparation of the above monetary loan certificate, but only this fact is given the above monetary loan certificate.