The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff lent to the defendant the amount of KRW 5 million on April 2, 2013, KRW 1 million on April 5, 2013, KRW 500,000 on April 19, 2013, and KRW 1 million on April 19, 2013, and that the defendant paid to the plaintiff on April 19, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the loan and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

A. On March 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff provided 6.5 million won as necessary expenses to the Defendant for receiving orders from the said Corporation in the course of consultation with the Plaintiff in order to order the removal of military units and the relocation work of cemeteries in the Gyeonggi-do. The Defendant used the said money for obtaining orders from the said Corporation, but failed to comply with the orders of the said Corporation.

Therefore, the money that the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant is not a loan, but an investment for the said construction contract, and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to return.

B. In a case where a disposal document, such as a certificate of borrowing the relevant legal doctrine, 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 stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the content of the statement.

(Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265 Delivered on February 26, 2002). C.

Judgment

In addition, there is no evidence to prove the above assertion by the defendant, and the evidence No. 1 corresponds to the disposal document as "the tea certificate" and the authenticity of the loan certificate is recognized.

In the above loan certificate, there is no clear and acceptable evidence that the Defendant repeatedly stated the Plaintiff’s claim amount as “the Plaintiff’s claim amount” from the Plaintiff, and otherwise there is no other evidence to deny the contents of the above loan certificate. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Conclusion.