1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole arguments, it is acknowledged that the defendant prepared and executed a notarial deed for cash loan agreement (No. 1523 by a notary public law firm, 2010) to the effect that the defendant borrowed KRW 98 million from the plaintiff on April 25, 2010 at interest rate of 15% per annum. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 25, 2010 to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the effect that the defendant is unable to respond to the plaintiff's claim because the defendant prepared a notarial deed on a monetary loan contract for consumption with a larger amount than the actual loan amount so that the plaintiff can seize the defendant's reimbursement to the maximum extent possible, in the event that a credit problem arises to the defendant even though the amount actually borrowed from the plaintiff is 37 million won, but the defendant is not able to accept the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence and the whole arguments, the defendant has been engaged in money transactions over several years between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, by arranging the claim relationship occurred, and prepares a notarial deed by preparing a monetary loan contract for consumption with the above amount, and even before

The defendant's above assertion is difficult to accept, since it is only recognized that the defendant did not dispute or dispute about the above amount.

Therefore, since the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.