1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 200,000 to the defendant on August 30, 2006 can be recognized as being due and payable on August 21, 2009.

[In the case of a sub-agent of a lawsuit by the defendant, at the date of pleading on December 22, 2017, the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (the evidence No. 1) was recognized.]

A. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for a loan of KRW 200 million and damages for delay thereof, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff actually lent KRW 60 million to E and issued a loan certificate to the defendant, and that it is not legally effective even if he borrowed money or granted a loan certificate, and that it merely borrowed money from the plaintiff as requested by the plaintiff, and the defendant did not borrow KRW 200 million from the plaintiff.

B. As long as a disposition document is recognized as having been authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent by its content, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence to deny the content of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu22169, Jun. 26, 1990). In a case where the signature of the party, which is the title holder recorded in the disposition document, does not dispute the party himself/herself as its own completion, even without the seal affixed to the document, the probative value of the document is presumed to have been completed, and thus, it cannot be rejected without any reasonable explanation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590 delivered on October 14, 1994, etc.). According to the above legal principle, inasmuch as the Defendant acknowledged the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1), the Defendant’s assertion is recognized as having been lent as indicated in the loan certificate, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation to perform the Defendant from February 25, 2017, which was the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff as a result of the repayment period of KRW 200,000 and the Plaintiff’s repayment period.