1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from September 1, 2006 to November 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to Gap's evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant prepared on June 9, 2006 a cash custody certificate stating "Won 30,000,000, Won , Won 30,000, Won , Won , Won 30,000, Won , Won , and Won , Won 31 August 2006, Won , to the original holder of the certificate

In cases where a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent based on its content must be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759, Nov. 27, 1990). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 1, 2006, which is the day following the due date for payment, to November 22, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the following day to the day of full payment, to November 22, 2016, which is the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

(1) The defendant's assertion on June 9, 2006 that the plaintiff sought the payment of interest from June 9, 2006, but there is no evidence to support the existence of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, the part claiming interest cannot be acknowledged. The defendant's claim for interest is dismissed. However, it is not reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation. Thus, the defendant's claim on February 2, 200, the defendant prepared a cash custody certificate and provided the cash custody certificate in advance by preparing the cash custody certificate and granting it later, and the plaintiff did not actually pay money. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the expression of intent stated in the cash custody certificate is false. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground for appeal.