1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is accepted as the ground for this judgment in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and below, the defendant briefly examined the main arguments that the appellate court repeated.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff A's claim for return of loan is unfair, since he was paid money to the plaintiff as the expenses for incorporation and the amount of investment, and the amount of money first 50 million won began with the loan interest rate of the third part of the month.

However, in a case where a disposal document, such as a certificate of borrowing, is deemed to have been prepared by the holder of the title to the document, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of the statement

(2) In the event that both parties are liable to deliver money, or other substitutes, not by a loan for consumption, and both parties agree to make the object of a loan for consumption, the loan for consumption becomes effective if they agree to make the object of the loan for consumption (Article 605 of the Civil Act). On the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the foregoing reasoning, most of the documentary evidence indicated as evidence recognizing the fact of a loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a disposal document as “a loan” and the Defendant’s own signature, seal, or stamped on a loan certificate, and thus, the authenticity of the loan certificate is all recognized.

In addition, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the above loan certificate was drawn up by the Defendant with interest accrued at KRW 50 million, while the Defendant initially failed to pay interest accrued at KRW 50 million, and there is no other evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that there is no clear and acceptable evidence to deny the content of the loan certificate drawn up by the Defendant to the Plaintiff A.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is correct.