1. As to KRW 80,00,000 and KRW 78,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from August 25, 2009 to June 10, 2015.

1. On August 25, 2009, the Defendant issued a loan certificate No. 1 (hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”) stating that “The Defendant shall prove to borrow KRW 80 million.”

The fact that he prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 80 million based on the loan certificate of this case and damages for delay, unless there are other special circumstances.

(B) In light of the fact that there is no mentioning statement and interest on the loan certificate of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a new loan agreement for consumption, rather than entering into a new loan agreement, to confirm that the Defendant had the money to be paid to the Plaintiff by means of money lending, etc., at least when drawing up the loan certificate of this case, there seems to be a claim for performance as to the principal amount of KRW 78 million claimed by

The defendant's argument concerning the defendant's assertion that the loan certificate of this case was prepared in the sense that the defendant sold 60 million won to the plaintiff to the plaintiff in Yangju City, which secured the execution of the ownership transfer registration with respect to 200 square meters out of 700 square meters in the land for stock farm, and that it did not intend to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 80 million to the plaintiff.

However, as long as a disposition document is accepted as a petition, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the language stated in the disposition, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the obligation of KRW 80 million according to the loan certificate of this case recognized as a petition, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no explicit implied agreement different from the contents stated therein.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s KRW 80 million based on the loan certificate of this case.