1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 21, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that he borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant. On January 21, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted to the Defendant a certificate of borrowing KRW 30 million (the repayment period: December 30, 2009; hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

However, the defendant received only the loan certificate and did not lend the above money, and thereafter forced execution on the plaintiff's property by based on the loan certificate of this case.

The loan certificate of this case, where the money is not actually paid, is invalid, and thus, seek nullification of the loan certificate.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim is sought to confirm that there is no obligation based on the instant loan certificate, since there is no ground to deny the validity of the loan certificate itself, so long as the certificate of short loan is duly established.

According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s failure was rendered for the following reasons in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of secured debt related to the establishment registration of real estate adjacent to the real estate established by the Defendant based on the instant loan certificate (the Mine District Court 2014Na13736).

- In order to raise funds from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract and borrowed real estate as collateral a sum of KRW 40 million from the Defendant on March 3, 2008, and KRW 20 million on May 2, 2008, and KRW 40 million on May 2, 2008, and decided that each of the above loans was paid directly by the Defendant to C, and that each of the above loans agreed upon and delayed payment was paid to C. The above amount of KRW 40 million was included in the secured debt of the establishment of mortgage as the Plaintiff’s debt against the Defendant, and it was paid KRW 20 million on April 7, 201, and cannot be accepted as inconsistent with the legal relation under res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit, and there is no evidence supporting that the Plaintiff did not receive the loan due to the loan certificate of this case.

3. Conclusion Plaintiff