1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent to the defendant the amount of KRW 16 million on September 13, 2007, KRW 6 million on March 11, 2008, and KRW 22 million on March 11, 2008, at the interest rate of KRW 1% per month, and on April 30, 2008, the payment period of the above loans and delay damages. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loans and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is not a loan of the above KRW 22 million, but it was received as operating expenses for normalization of D Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter "the instant association") and used in compliance with its purpose, and thus, it is not obligated to comply with the plaintiff's claim.

The evidence No. 6 (Evidence No. 6) submitted by the Plaintiff was forged, and the Defendant did not prepare.

2. The facts that the plaintiff remitted 16 million won to the defendant on September 13, 2007, and that E, the husband of the plaintiff, remitted 6 million won to the defendant on March 11, 2008 are not in dispute between the parties.

However, in light of the following circumstances as to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, the evidence Nos. 4, 5 (including paper numbers), and Nos. 2, 6, 21, and 23, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence No. 6 cannot be used as evidence, and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial who seems to correspond to the facts of lending the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be used as evidence, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 is insufficient to acknowledge the above lending fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① If evidence No. 6 (Evidence) is used as evidence, the authenticity shall be proven (Article 357 of the Civil Procedure Act). In the event there is a signature, etc. of the person who prepared the document, the document shall be presumed to have been duly formed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the burden of proof exists to the person who asserts that the signature on the document is the person who prepared the document.

However, the Plaintiff.