1. The Defendant’s KRW 60 million with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 14, 2019 to December 27, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) made himself/herself as a debtor and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of the borrowed money, stating the Plaintiff’s maturity of KRW 60 million; (b) November 14, 2018; (c) the interest rate per month; and (d) the method of payment 2%; and (c) the 16th day of each month.

On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public, entrusted the law firm C with the preparation of a promissory note No. 2277 on the same day, drafted a deed of promissory notes dated November 14, 2018, which consists of the issuer, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the face value KRW 60,000,000, and the due date.

B. The Plaintiff remitted each of the Defendant’s accounts KRW 10 million on November 16, 2017, KRW 40 million on February 1, 2018, and KRW 10 million on February 15, 2018.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 120 million as loans, since the plaintiff lent the total amount of KRW 120 million, which was transferred to the defendant's account as a loan certificate and the notarial deed of promissory note No. 60 million, and the amount of KRW 60 million, which was remitted to the defendant's account.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 120 million is not a loan, but a loan, which is not a loan, invested by the plaintiff in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and that the defendant is not liable for it.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant, as the obligor and the issuer of promissory note, prepared a loan certificate and promissory note with respect to KRW 60 million, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60 million as the obligor.

However, for the remaining 60 million won, it is not sufficient to recognize it as a loan by only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's 60 million won and the plaintiff's 60 million won following the delivery date of the complaint as requested by the plaintiff, which is reasonable from January 14, 2019 to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's responsibilities.