1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the loan amounting to KRW 180 million against the Defendant as the High Government District Court Decision 2009Gahap779 decided August 7, 2009.

B. On March 18, 2010, the Defendant issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with “The amount of KRW 70 million per annum, the due date on July 31, 201, the issuer, the Defendant, and the joint guarantor C” with respect to the said promissory note as No. 145 (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”) with respect to the said promissory note as a law firm No. 2010, which was a legal entity, on condition that the Plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit for the said loan claim. On the same day, the Defendant prepared and executed a loan certificate with “the borrowed amount of KRW 30 million, the due date on July 31, 2012” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

C. On August 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff by October 30, 2012 (payment of KRW 30 million per annum for interest in arrears) (payment of KRW 30 million by October 30, 2012); and (b) “Written rejection of the instant payment.”

3) prepare and conclude an order. [Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and 7 (each entry, including each number, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination

A. The Defendant prepared a loan certificate and a written notice of payment stating that he would pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million and damages for delay calculated by subtracting KRW 20 million from the amount of KRW 30 million paid to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion ① The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 180 million to the Defendant is deemed to have invested in an illegal and speculative business, and is contrary to good morals and other social order, and is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act, to receive the payment of said money. As such, the Plaintiff may not claim KRW 30 million to the Defendant based on the loan certificate and the payment note.

(2)