1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) on the due date set on March 31, 2014. On the same day, the Plaintiff was issued a cash custody certificate (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) stating the same purport from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the loan of this case KRW 30 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) although the defendant has signed the cash custody certificate of this case, it is hard to believe that the defendant had signed the cash custody certificate of this case, and since C is expected to lend money from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, it was signed on the cash custody certificate of this case. The loan of this case was used by C without payment from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also knew that C used the loan of this case, such as the deposit contract of this case and the receipt of the certificate of promissory note from C, and therefore, the debtor of the loan of this case must be deemed to be C, not the defendant. Since the loan of this case is well aware of the circumstances that C used the loan of this case such as the receipt of the deposit contract of this case and the certificate of promissory note from the plaintiff, the loan of this case must be deemed to be the debtor of this case. The plaintiff of this case's loan of this case is hard to believe in light of each statement in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, and all other evidence submitted by the defendant are insufficient, and there is no reason for the defendant's argument.