1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 1, 2012 to September 3, 2013; and (b).

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), the defendant may recognize the fact that he promised the plaintiff to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the plaintiff on April 27, 2012 until November 30, 2012. Each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and 2-2 is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won, and damages for delay calculated by the annual rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from December 1, 2012 to September 3, 2013, the copy of the complaint of this case is delivered to the defendant, and the damages for delay calculated by the following day to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay the loan amount of KRW 100,000,000, while granting the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff, and preparing the instant loan certificate and completing the registration of establishment of a neighboring building No. 102, 1403, Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building No. 102, but the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay the loan amount of KRW 100,00,000. Thus, according to each of the evidence No. 1 and No. 1, the date of preparing the loan certificate of this case is April 27, 2012, and the date of applying for the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage is 10 days different on May 7, 2012, since it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s assertion against the empirical rule and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.