1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from October 30, 2013 to September 17, 2017, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant made a monetary transaction from around December 201, 201, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s passbook on April 29, 2013.

The defendant transferred KRW 100 million to another account under the name of the defendant, but transferred it to the head of Tong C who operated credit business.

B. When the Defendant was unable to repay the above KRW 100 million, on October 30, 2013, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing the above KRW 100 million at the interest rate of 10% per annum (However, on October 1, 2013, the date of preparation was stated retrospectively) and delivered it to the Plaintiff. On the same day, in the event that the above KRW 100 million was not repaid, a letter of intent to make a notarized order after submitting all documents related to the notarial act was submitted.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In relation to the Plaintiff’s filing of a claim for the payment of KRW 100 million of the above loan, the Defendant did not borrow the above KRW 100 million, but merely introduced the loan by C, and the above loan certificate, etc. was delivered to the Plaintiff with various pressures against the Defendant, such as “C would obtain a seal impression from the Defendant’s parents,” and “A, upon receipt of a document evidencing that the loan certificate prepared by the Defendant was invalid.” The Plaintiff was well aware that it was not made based on the Defendant’s genuine intent, and thus, the Defendant’s intent expressed on the loan certificate, etc. was null and void as a false declaration of intention.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant had experience in the loan company's work, as to the defendant's argument about the defendant's improper expression of intent for the convenience of judgment, the defendant's defense is not acceptable on the ground that the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone are insufficient to acknowledge this part of the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the defendant's assertion.

Furthermore, the defendant's loan certificate is the same.