1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from around 1989 to November 1, 1993 that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 123,415,00 on four occasions to the Defendants. From around April 1998, the Plaintiff received interest of KRW 3 million per month from the Defendants.

After that, on January 7, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to set the principal amount as KRW 300 million in consideration of the amount of accrued interest, etc. and pay interest at 1% per month. The Defendants drafted “the tea card” (Evidence A No. 1) stating the above contents.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received interest from the Defendants until August 30, 2004, and received a total of KRW 4,58 million from September 27, 2006 to March 12, 2013, and the said money was appropriated for payment of interest from September 1, 2004 to December 8, 2005.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 300,000,000 and interest and delay damages from December 9, 2005.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) is made. The Defendants are the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1 and a copy).

hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”

)을 작성한 적이 없다고 주장하므로, 그 진정성립에 관하여 본다. 2) 갑 제8호증의 각 기재, 감정인 D에 대한 필적감정촉탁 결과 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 피고들의 딸은 원고의 딸에게 “이 사건 차용증이 아빠(피고 B)의 필적은 맞다. 엄마(피고 C)는 ‘이 사건 차용증은 세금 문제로 부채가 많다는 것을 입증하기 위하여 가짜로 작성한 것이고, 원본은 내가 어딘가에 두었다’고 말하더라”는 내용의 문자메시지를 발송한 사실이 인정되고, ② 이 사건 차용증의 필적을 감정하기 위하여 감정인 D은 2015. 12. 7. 피고 B의 필적을 취득하였는데, 그 과정에서 피고 B은 자신의 평소 필체를 감추기 위해 위필(僞筆)한 것으로 보인다.

3. However, according to the results of the written request for an appraiser D, this case is examined.