1. The defendant shall pay 40 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 7, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the oral argument, the defendant borrowed money several times from the plaintiff and completed the loan certificate (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") with the purport that "40 million won shall be repaid to the plaintiff up to August 31, 2009, with the maximum amount of the borrowed money, and as soon as possible after adjustment after consultation with the plaintiff, if there is any outstanding part of the loan certificate" (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"). Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won and delay damages for the loan of this case.

As to this, the defendant was unable to pay KRW 30 million out of the borrowed amount under the loan certificate of this case. However, with respect to KRW 10 million between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to pay KRW 1,00,000 per month to the defendant on the day on which the plaintiff promised to pay the interest of KRW 1,00,000 per month according to the number of the plaintiff, and Eul did not deliver the money to the defendant. On the other hand, since the defendant did not pay the money to C, the defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case including KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to C was not known to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff should be paid to C, but the plaintiff should be paid KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 to the plaintiff, as the defendant's assertion, even if the defendant made the loan certificate of this case and paid the money to C.

Even if the issue arises between the defendant and C, it cannot be seen that the effect of the loan certificate of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is affected. The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff would not use the loan certificate of this case for the legal purpose on the face of the plaintiff's drafting of the loan certificate of this case, and the defendant's statement of intent in the loan certificate of this case should be revoked, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.