1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual amount of KRW 9.6% from April 28, 2006 to May 14, 2018.

Facts of recognition

While maintaining internal relations, the plaintiff and the defendant given birth to the third day's father.

On April 27, 2006, the Defendant prepared and rendered to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing that KRW 200 million will be KRW 0.8% per month of interest rate, and that the repayment period will be set at April 2008 (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

The plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to the defendant around that time.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff made a loan of KRW 200 million to the defendant, so the defendant must pay it to the plaintiff.

Around April 2006, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant make a formal loan certificate to the Defendant by lending money from the Plaintiff’s friendship D to the Defendant. The Defendant trusted this to the Plaintiff and issued the instant loan certificate, and thus, the said loan certificate is null and void by either declaring the intention of the truth or by deceiving the Plaintiff.

The KRW 200 million stated in the loan certificate of this case was donated to the Defendant as the child support for his father and wife.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the above evidence and evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4-3 and the purport of the entire argument, namely, ① the Defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case with its own intent, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to the Defendant according to the above loan certificate, ② the Defendant asserted that the above loan certificate was formally prepared and issued at the Plaintiff’s request, but the Plaintiff’s lending of money does not seem to require a loan certificate under its name. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not persuasive, and there is no evidence to confirm that the Plaintiff requested it to the Defendant, ③ the Plaintiff’s deposit transaction statement (No. 4-1 to 3) were examined, and the Plaintiff’s deposit transaction statement (No. 4-1 to 3) was examined, from around 2006 to 2015.