1. The defendant shall pay 28,150,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from September 20, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. According to the Plaintiff’s statement on the Plaintiff’s claim No. 1, the Defendant, on December 17, 2013, may recognize the fact that the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed 32 million won from the Plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 3.5 million on September 21, 2015, and KRW 3.85 million on February 15, 2016, among the above loans from the Defendant.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay 2,8150,000 won remaining after deducting the amount of the Plaintiff paid out of the above loans, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 20, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case to the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The main point of the argument is that the above loan certificate (A) will be prepared to report and settle the details of the passbook later.

According to the details of passbooks between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff wired 20,500,000 won to the Defendant from August 22, 2013 to March 5, 2016, and instead, received 31,850,000 won from the Defendant from June 10, 2013 to March 15, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant only borrowed the amount less than the actual amount stated in the above loan certificate from the plaintiff, and the borrowed amount was fully repaid.

Therefore, the money that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff remains.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s assertion is the purport that, notwithstanding the amount stated in the above loan certificate, the settlement was planned later, and only borrowed money that was remitted from the Plaintiff. If the authenticity of a disposal document, such as the above loan certificate, is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized, barring special circumstances where the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document is evident and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). However, 1 through 200.