1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where a claim (2) is used for the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts 2. Determination on the Grounds of Claims

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million to the Defendant on January 6, 2015, and KRW 50 million on January 25, 2005, at the Defendant’s request that the business capital be lent, and the Defendant written a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 3) stating that he/she would pay KRW 50 million until June 30, 2008, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 50 million and interest thereon.

As to this, the defendant did not borrow KRW 50 million from the plaintiff, but invested KRW 50 million in the defendant's bail business, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to hold responsible for the investment money, Gap evidence No. 3 is forged, and even if not, the plaintiff prepared as necessary to show her husband, and the contents of the loan certificate are invalid because it is a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of agreement with the plaintiff.

B. 1) First, Party A’s certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) No. 3

In other words, the appraiser C presented the opinion that the completion of the loan certificate of this case is the same as the penmatic as that of the defendant's self-defense, which was submitted by the court on April 24, 2017, stating that "the plaintiff prepared the loan certificate of this case as it is necessary for the plaintiff to show to her husband," and that the loan certificate of this case was prepared according to the defendant's will."