1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Around April 2008, the Plaintiff, who was unmarried, became an employee at a entertainment establishment located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and maintained a continuous full-time relationship with the Defendant from that time to March 2010.

B. The Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s DNA Bank Account, KRW 10 million on April 20, 2008, ② KRW 10 million on June 26, 2008, ③ KRW 10 million on July 4, 2008.

C. On April 20, 2008, the Defendant: “Around December 20, 2008, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million per annum from the Plaintiff at a rate of 10% per annum, and decided to repay until December 31, 2008.” Around January 9, 2010, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on or around January 9, 2008, and repaid KRW 30 million each month from January 201.

“The loan certificate was drawn up and issued.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to Eul 3 (the defendant only contests that Gap 3 was made by the plaintiff's coercion and recognizes the authenticity itself as a whole) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 31 million and the agreed interest and delay damages in accordance with each of the loan certificates of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense and judgment (1) each of the loans in this case is only made by the defendant as a collateral for the purpose of living together with the plaintiff or maintaining relations with the plaintiff, and it was made without the actual intent to bear the debt. The plaintiff, knowing such circumstance and understanding it, was merely formally made under the intention not to assume the responsibility as the debtor against the defendant, and therefore, it is argued that the expression of intent on the loan certificate is invalid as it constitutes a bad declaration of intention. Thus, if a certain declaration of intention is asserted as invalid as a bad declaration of intention, the burden of proof shall be borne by the claimant.