1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following determination as to the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff sought the Defendant and requested the preparation of the loan certificate, and once the loan certificate was prepared and there is no money to be settled later, the Plaintiff prepared the loan certificate (No. 1, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) on the condition that the loan certificate be recovered.

Since then, the defendant calculated the interest rate of 1.2% per month, the defendant had already paid all principal and interest to the plaintiff, and expressed his/her intention that there was no money to reduce since the payment of the principal and interest was completed by mail proving the content.

Therefore, the defendant's act of preparing the loan certificate of this case is an expression of intent by mistake, and it is revoked.

B. The written evidence No. 1 contains the following circumstances, namely, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s agreement that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff as 1.2% per month (the amount of borrowed money shall be deemed to exceed the principal leased to the Defendant, and the interest agreement itself seems to have existed). ② The loan certificate that the Defendant drafted against the Plaintiff is indicated on December 20, 2014, as well as on the specific circumstances related to the period of repayment, “the repayment of principal shall be made immediately after the completion of the unmanned telecom with construction,” which can be deemed as a special agreement. Considering the above contents, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, around September 28, 2014, determined the Plaintiff’s principal and interest at KRW 70 million and prepared the loan certificate as seen earlier, and ③ more than five years after the Defendant drafted the loan certificate.