1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time, the Plaintiff lent KRW 75,00,000 to the Defendant, who was in a de facto marital state with the Plaintiff’s Dong C at the time, as the operating fund of a restaurant, KRW 20 million as the interest rate on January 18, 2012, KRW 50 million as the interest rate of KRW 2% per month ( KRW 1 million per month), and KRW 5 million as an additional five million on February 15, 2012.

The principal and interest that the defendant has fully repaid shall be as follows:

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, whether the Defendant borrowed a loan from the Defendant husband and wife, and the name of the Defendant, among the joint loan certificates under the name of the Defendant husband and wife, was prepared by C while the Defendant followed, and the money was 40 million won as the Defendant married in D real estate and paid to the cafeteria lessor via a licensed real estate agent, and 30 million won was paid to C.

The defendant asserts that there is no agreement on the loan.

We examine evidence to prove the facts borrowed by the defendant.

The loan certificate (A) in the name of the defendant does not have any evidence to prove the authenticity of the establishment of the petition (as to whether the plaintiff acknowledges that the plaintiff was prepared by C, and further whether the defendant permitted to prepare by C, E's factual confirmation (A 5) is a joint creditor with the plaintiff in light of the plaintiff's spouse's personal domicile and the statement of the loan certificate, and therefore, the plaintiff may file a claim only 1/2

3) As the Plaintiff has an interest, the Plaintiff can only present the same as the Plaintiff’s assertion and cannot be admitted as evidence (this ground is without merit).

) The evidence is insufficient to recognize evidence in light of the opposite circumstance in which the Defendant refused the signature of the Defendant, or C did not sign, even though the Defendant did not have any circumstance to replace the Defendant’s protective order, even though the Plaintiff did not have any other circumstance.