1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, in a de facto marital relationship with E, was engaged in supplying food materials to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and the Defendant was engaged in food processing business and actually operated F.

B. On November 4, 2006, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a certificate of borrowing “B” (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing 1”) stating that “I have borrowed the above amount at KRW 56,000,000 on a daily deposit (on November 4, 2006 on the next date): B.

C. On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) regularly borrowed the above amount of KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant; and (b) confirmed that from September 2013, the Plaintiff would pay KRW 2,00,000,000 as investment gains; and (c) from October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff would pay KRW 3,00,000 as investment gains; (b) “FB” is “the second loan certificate; and (c) “the first loan certificate and the second loan certificate,” each of the instant loans certificates.

) was issued [Grounds for Recognition] A. A. 1, 2, 12, and 13 evidence (if any, including each number), each entry, including each number, E’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 86 million won of loans on each of the instant loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that each of the instant loans is not the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but E and F.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s preparation of each of the instant loan certificates is acknowledged, and all of the Defendant’s names are clearly indicated at the bottom of each of the instant loan certificates, and it is difficult to view that each of the instant loan certificates was made by F due to the lack of in-house directors G, the representative of F at the time, and the Defendant’s personal qualification.