Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

A. On October 26, 2007, Defendant B borrowed KRW 130 million on the loan and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing stating that “The loan will be repaid until November 2, 2007.”

(B) The Defendant B signed the “Borrower” and the Deceased signed the “Co-sureties” column.

On November 15, 2007, Defendant B: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 400 million in connection with the implementation of multi-family housing in several lots of land outside G; and (b) prepared a loan certificate stating that “The Plaintiff will repay by December 15, 2007” (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

Defendant B affixed his seal on the “vehicle” column, and the Deceased signed on the “Joint Surety” column.

(C) On October 27, 2007, Defendant B issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 450 million to the Plaintiff, and prepared a notarial deed with respect to the said promissory note. The Deceased paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff on December 27, 2007. D. The Deceased died on October 26, 2015, and on June 30, 2016, the deceased’s spouse C, Defendant D, and E received a ruling from the Seoul Family Court to accept a report on the qualified acceptance of the inheritance of the deceased’s property (No. 2016Ra643). [In the absence of any dispute over recognition, the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 6, and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As to the cause of claim

A. On October 26, 2007, the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 530 million to Defendant B as indicated in the loan certificate and the loan certificate of this case, and received KRW 200 million from the deceased and demanded the return of the remainder of KRW 330 million. Accordingly, the Defendant B did not return the existing loan amount of KRW 130 million. The instant loan certificate was prepared formally at the deceased’s request, and it was proved that it did not actually borrow additional KRW 400 million. 2) If the authenticity of the disposal document is acknowledged, it is obvious and acceptable that the content of the statement can be denied.