1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 30% per annum from February 20, 2009 to July 14, 2014.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff loaned the defendant the amount of KRW 80 million on February 20, 2009 to 36% per annum on October 31, 2009 (100 million when the above payment was made) and the delay damages rate of KRW 80 million to the defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from February 20, 2009 to July 14, 2014, based on the interest rate of KRW 80 million and each limit within the limit of the Interest Limitation Act.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that C borrowed money from the Plaintiff in relation to the registration of a building name lawsuit, etc., the Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. However, in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized, barring special circumstances where there is clear and acceptable to deny the existence and content of the declaration of intent indicated in the document.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da38602 delivered on October 13, 2000, etc.). Recognizing that the authenticity of the cash custody certificate No. 1 is established, the data submitted by the Defendant alone lacks to reverse the contents of the said cash custody certificate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected.

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.