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. Basic facts

A. On July 8, 200, the Defendant drafted two copies of the loan certificate stating that “Won 10,000,000 won per day (Won 10,000,000) and the above amount will be repaid until December 31, 200,” which read “each of the above loan certificates will be repaid by December 31, 200 scheduled repayment” (hereinafter “the above loan certificate,” and “the above loans amounting to KRW 20 million”).

B. On the other hand, on July 16, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order against the Defendant for the return of the instant loan amount under the High Government District Court 2007 tea2966 on the basis of the instant loan certificate, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the first instance judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 28, 2008 as a result of the said case being implemented as litigation procedures and carried out by service by public notice.

C. After that, on June 2015, the Plaintiff presented the original copy of the instant loan to the Defendant at the place of delivery, along with the Defendant and the Defendant’s mother C, and the Defendant returned it to the Plaintiff again at that place.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserted that he was directly issued and delivered the certificate of loan of this case by the defendant while lending the loan of this case to the defendant on July 8, 2000 as he had been requested to lend money from the defendant through C on several occasions prior to the drawing up of the loan of this case. The defendant's assertion against the defendant as to the defendant's assertion that the loan of this case was issued and delivered by the defendant, and the defendant is claimed to refund the loan of this case and the delay damages. 2) The plaintiff did not borrow the loan of this case from the plaintiff and did not have borrowed the loan of this case from the plaintiff, and there was no delivery and delivery of the certificate of loan of this case from the plaintiff. The loan of this case was used several times prior to the drawing up of the loan of this case, which was used on July 8, 200.