1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant B’s KRW 190,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related May 2014.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the court renders a dismissal as follows; and (b) it cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) (the defendant denies Gap evidence Nos. 8, but considering the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser F of this court, the above documentary evidence may be acknowledged as having been prepared by defendant B's own pen), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. As long as the establishment of a loan agreement is recognized as the authenticity thereof, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the agreement, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994). In a case where there is a difference between the parties about the interpretation of the agreement and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the agreement is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the agreement in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da5336, 5343, Jan. 24, 2003). Accordingly, the loan certificate of this case delivered by Defendant B to the Plaintiff is clearly indicated as “one hundred and ninety million won interest per day, and one hundred and ninety million won interest shall be borrowed,” and even if the evidence submitted by the Defendants was examined, it is clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the loan certificate. Thus, as long as the Plaintiff claims the return of the loan in accordance with the above loan certificate, the Defendant B is against the Plaintiff.