1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 300,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from September 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that KRW 250,000,000 was the Defendant around 194 and lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 5,000,000 per month.

On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that the remaining principal and interest of the above loan shall be settled as KRW 300 million, and that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff.”

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 30 million won of the above loan and damages for delay.

B. The defendant alleged that he borrowed money from the plaintiff.

Although the Defendant prepared and delivered the above loan certificate to the Plaintiff, it is nothing more than the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to receive subsequent investments from the Plaintiff and prepared and delivered it in advance.

The plaintiff did not deliver the above investment money to the defendant thereafter.

2. Determination

A. As long as a disposal document is deemed to have been duly formed, the court must recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da105867, Apr. 26, 2012). (B)

The fact that the Defendant, on December 27, 2010, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that “The above amount is fixed, KRW 300,000,000, and at the time you request repayment, you shall repay the above amount.” There is no dispute between the parties.

On the other hand, the fact that the borrower was unable to receive the loan even though the certificate of loan was prepared is an exceptional case in light of the usual transactional concept, and there is no other counter-proof that the contents of the loan certificate in this case are false.

In light of the probative value of the disposal document, it is reasonable to deem that the actual borrowing of money was made.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is seeking from September 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the following day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the Plaintiff.