The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Determination on the claim amounting to KRW 20,000,000 on March 11, 2014

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that on March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the Defendant.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a loan certificate as follows and delivered it to the plaintiff on March 11, 2014. The amount of cash loan certificate No. 20 million won (20,000,000) is the remainder of the purchase price of the apartment apartment in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the amount above will be repaid not later than August 31, 2014. This will assume any civil and criminal responsibilities at any time. The debtor on March 11, 2014: B (person) D Mtesan E (person): the creditor of D Mtesan-gu: 2) as long as the contents of the disposal document are deemed to be genuine and correct, the court should recognize the existence and contents of the declaration by the contents so long as it is clear and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759, 12766 Decided November 27, 1990, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, unless there is any other counter-proof, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant agreed to borrow money of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff to repay to the Plaintiff, unless there is any counter-proof.

3) The defendant's assertion that around March 2014, the plaintiff, who is the former administrator of the LAF, recommended the purchase of the apartment apartment G-ho-gu, Changwon-si, the Changwon-si, the KAF, to purchase the apartment of this case at KRW 135 million, and agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 15 million to the KAF, and that the plaintiff will not borrow the above loan certificate or pay the above money to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff, who is the former administrator of the LAF, to purchase the apartment of this case at KRW 15 million.

In light of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul's evidence No. 1 and the statement of H of the first instance court witness alone are the apartment of this case.