1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,740,804 as well as 6% per annum from September 28, 2019 to July 3, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in the new launch manufacturing business in Chinese heart, and the Defendant, around 2009, engaged in the new launch manufacturing business in the name of D by leasing a factory and facilities from the Plaintiff to the same manufacturing business.

B. On May 16, 201, the Defendant prepared and awarded to the Plaintiff the loan certificate as follows (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

A (Price of Goods) Cash 397,400 Bill;

5.24.10,000 square meters;

6.5. The preceding 97,400 Won and the remainder 200,000 Won will be repaid after the completion of the funeral service of Ghana.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for fraud on the ground that the Defendant did not repay the debt amounting to 397,400 bills based on the instant loan certificate. However, on November 9, 2016, the Defendant received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the Defendant borrowed 200,000 bills from the Plaintiff and received goods equivalent to 197,40 bills from the Plaintiff at the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office on November 9, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant is the plaintiff.

After the complaint as described in the subsection, 13,000,000 won was paid under the pretext of debt repayment based on the loan certificate of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As long as a disposal document is recognized as a authenticity of its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with its contents unless there is a clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents should be denied, and it shall not reject the contents without any instruction of the reasons acceptable to believe and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759, 12766 delivered on November 27, 1990, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

According to the above facts, the defendant decided to repay the 397,400 bill to the plaintiff through the preparation of the loan certificate of this case.