1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant promised to guarantee principal while soliciting the plaintiff to invest in stocks, and the plaintiff paid 20 million won to the defendant as the investment amount.

After that, the plaintiff demanded the return of the investment amount to the defendant on or around June 2009, the defendant again agreed to the return of the investment principal amount of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2-1 of subparagraph 1-2 of this Article, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 15 million to the Defendant on October 16, 2008 and KRW 5 million on October 21, 2008 under the pretext of the investment deposit. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to return the invested amount, regardless of whether the Defendant is able to make an investment, solely with the statements set forth in subparagraphs 3, 5, 6, and 7 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. The Plaintiff’s claim was accepted by public notice by the first instance court, and the Plaintiff submitted a loan certificate prepared by the Defendant at the first instance court, along with an application for payment order. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim should be accepted, in light of the circumstances where the record of the first instance court was already destroyed at the wind where a subsequent appeal was filed more than seven years after the first instance judgment was sentenced, and it was impossible to find the above loan certificate submitted by the Plaintiff.

In light of the records in Gap evidence No. 7, the defendant asserted that on August 27, 2009, after the end of June 2009, the plaintiff received the above loan certificate, the above 20 million won was taken by the defendant, by taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions in No. 5, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6, and the overall purport of the pleadings, as a document attached to the application for the payment order in this case.