1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a cashier’s check of KRW 10 million (hereinafter “instant check”) from the Defendant, and issued a copy of the check to the Defendant, stating the name of the Plaintiff on his/her own, and signing and delivering it to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the cash custody certificate of this case”). The cash custody certificate of this case was signed by E and C after signing as a observer.

B. Around June 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da5021204, and the said court on June 22, 2010, rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 10 million (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The said decision was finalized on July 9, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 1 and 4

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the execution by the execution recommendation decision of this case is unlawful, since he received a request from the defendant to ask for the so-called passbook for presentation with the defendant's funds, and received the check of this case from the defendant, and delivered it to D for presentation with approximately KRW 700 million deposited by the defendant, and there is no borrowing KRW 10 million from the defendant, and since there is no borrowing of KRW 10 million from the defendant, it is argued that the execution by the execution recommendation of this case is unlawful. 2) The defendant, by delivering the check of this case to the plaintiff, lent KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, and the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff are irrelevant to the defendant.

B. We examine the judgment, and the fact that the plaintiff received the check of this case from the defendant and prepared a certificate of custody in his name and delivered it to the defendant is a document prepared on the premise that the certificate of custody is to be returned later, and the above fact is the document prepared on the premise that the certificate of custody is to be returned later.