1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff

The main debt of the argument is KRW 5 million, and the repayment was completed ( KRW 350,00,000,000,000 from February 2, 2014 to March 395, 2016) and KRW 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 is denied, and even if there were the Plaintiff’s debt, it was the Plaintiff’s debt.

It is the argument that the statute of limitations has expired.

(The issue of res judicata of the decision on performance recommendation is not the issue of res judicata). The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts in each of the evidence No. 1 to No. 7, and No. 1 to No. 9 (including documentary evidence with multiple numbers, if any).

D The Plaintiff’s assertion that the seal affixed without permission and forged a cash custody certificate (A1-1) shall not be accepted as there is no proof.

Plaintiff

On November 1, 1998, the spouse D borrowed 19 million won from the defendant on April 30, 1999.

A1-1 Cash Storage Certificate last drawn up, which was written by the Plaintiff, was written by the Defendant, and was not present by the Plaintiff at the time of the preparation, and D was affixed with the Plaintiff’s seal and D’s seal. However, the Defendant received a certificate of personal seal impression (A3-2) issued by the Plaintiff on October 9, 1998.

(A) The defendant stated in the remarks column of "cash loan". D is represented by the plaintiff.

[A1-1’s “1989” accepts the Defendant’s assertion that it is an erroneous entry of “198.” Even if the date on which a certificate of seal imprint was issued, the period of payment is earlier than nine years and six months, not later than nine years and six months. “The Defendant lent the Plaintiff’s apartment in the mountain year.” This conforms with the fact that the Defendant’s legal statement was made, and that there was the purchase and sale of the apartment owned by the Plaintiff in 198. Only after the Defendant’s statement was made, the register was confirmed, and the filing date of the statement was earlier than November 1, 2018.

On the other hand, while the plaintiff did not memory during the trial procedure, it was issued in advance by the police as a "house."