1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have drawn up two loans or loans as described below:

1. Amount borrowed: 16 million won, interest rate: 12% per annum, date of redemption: within one year from the date of borrowing (Provided, That consultation at the time of postponement and consultation at the time of postponement and measures to preserve claims by creation of collateral security at the time of default;

A) The purpose of loan: The purchase fund of a house, the date of preparation of the loan: The loan amount of KRW 80 million: the date of loan: from June 22, 2005 to June 22, 2005; the repayment date: the date: December 31, 2008 (Provided, That the period may be postponed by one year after mutual agreement at the time of postponement): 12% per annum; the details of loan; the matters of special agreement: the measures to preserve claims - the establishment of a right to collateral security ( Daegu Dong-gu C Housing); the date of preparation: August 18, 206.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the above loan amount of KRW 96 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment as to the defendant's assertion of false conspiracy

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that each of the above loan certificates is invalid because, in collusion with the plaintiff on August 18, 2006, the above loan certificates was prepared in accordance with the entry of account transaction details on August 18, 2006 (the above loan certificates as of November 12, 2004 were prepared retroactively on the date of preparation) in order to avoid compulsory execution by the real estate listed in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table owned by the defendant against D (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate No. 1 of this case").

B. The following circumstances may be acknowledged in light of each of the evidence Nos. 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 11, and the whole purport of the pleadings as follows.

1. There is no data on the details that the Plaintiff paid KRW 16 million to the Defendant on November 12, 2004 relating to the original loan worth KRW 16 million on November 12, 2004.

2. The above loan certificate.