1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 71,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from September 12, 2019 to the date of complete payment.

1. In a case where, in principle, determination as to the cause of the claim, in a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are special circumstances where the existence and content of the declaration of intent expressed in the document is evident and acceptable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). According to the purport of the statement and argument of No. 3 as to the instant case, the Defendant received KRW 1,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 19, 2018, “The Defendant shall receive KRW 1,00,000 from the Plaintiff on February 1, 2017. The Defendant shall pay KRW 25,00,000 in interest equivalent to the above amount, and shall faithfully perform the promise by paying KRW 25,00,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff.” The loan certificate of this case may be acknowledged as having been signed and sealed at the lower end, and then delivered it to the Plaintiff via C. Thus, the loan certificate of this case may be established.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 71,00,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from September 12, 2019 to the day of full payment, after the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff as a result of the due date.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff's mother or the plaintiff, and the loan certificate of this case was prepared upon C's request, and the plaintiff was also aware of it, and there was no means to express the plaintiff's intent to repay the loan, so the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the loan money. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above fact, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Rather, the following facts are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the whole pleadings.