1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 185,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff, without preparing a loan certificate, etc., lent money several times to C Co., Ltd. with the representative director (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”). On December 17, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered “the certificate of loan performance” to the effect that the Defendant would repay the above loan by December 31, 2007, by the Nonparty Co., Ltd. and its loan amounting to KRW 493,525,692.

On the other hand, on December 17, 2007, on the day of the preparation of the said “a tea certificate”, the Plaintiff was also drawn up and delivered with the following loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

The loan certificate (Won 185,000,000,000) is a single loan certificate, and the above amount (Won 493,525,692, the cash loan amount of C’s total loan) is borrowed to D representative A on December 17, 2007. There is no dispute over B / [based on recognition], Gap 1 through 11 (Evidence A 1 and Evidence A 5, Evidence A 2, and Evidence A 4) are written, the whole purport of the pleadings and arguments [the defendant] on the date of the first pleading, the whole purport of the pleadings and arguments [the evidence No. 2 (Won 4, the statement of the performance of the borrowed money, the evidence No. 4) are as follows.

(2) On April 3, 2017, the court below acknowledged the authenticity of the document, and revoked it through the legal brief dated April 3, 2017. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the recognition of the establishment was contrary to the truth and due to mistake. Even if such revocation was not possible, the above revocation is invalid, and even if the letter stamped on the above document at the second date for pleading, as long as the existence of the corporate seal of the non-party company is recognized at the non-party company, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been presumed to have been established. In addition, the letter affixed on the evidence No. 6 (a certificate of seal imprint), as the certificate of seal imprint, is presumed to have been established as a whole, since

The defendant defense that both Gap evidence 2 and 6 were forged, but it is admitted as evidence.