The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant in cash on June 10, 2010, and extended KRW 20 million on June 15, 201 and KRW 10 million on June 18, 201.

Accordingly, on June 18, 2010, the defendant's total amount of KRW 50 million is the same year.

7. up to 18. The loan certificate was drawn up and delivered to the Plaintiff with a view to repayment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 50 million and the delayed damages.

B. The Defendant repeatedly borrowed money from the Plaintiff from around 2001 to repeated payment. However, the Defendant did not borrow 50 million won in cash over three times from the Plaintiff around June 2010.

The Defendant, regardless of the above loan certificate, borrowed money from the Plaintiff several times before and after June 2010, but paid to the Plaintiff including interest at a high rate.

The Plaintiff, around June 2010, threatened the Defendant to prepare a loan certificate on the basis of the unpaid amount of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. While the Defendant was thought to have repaid most over ten years, the Plaintiff did not settle the account of the loan certificate in the form of the loan certificate prepared and kept by the Plaintiff and signed and sealed the loan certificate as required by the Plaintiff. The judgment on February 2.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the court below acknowledged the fact that on June 18, 2010, the defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that he/she will pay 50 million won to the plaintiff by July 18, 2010 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) and directly stated the defendant’s address, telephone number, resident registration number, and name and affixed a seal thereon.

B. As long as the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document, but it is obvious and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement.