1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 13, 2005, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant at interest rate of 10% per annum (Provided, That (b) KRW 90,000,000,000, which remains after being paid KRW 70,000,000,000 by cashier’s checks for one year); and (c) on February 13, 2007, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. Around March 2005, the defendant's father, who is the defendant's father, borrowed KRW 100 million from D, who was the defendant's father and the defendant's principal, through the defendant, but repaid KRW 70 million, the defendant prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case to D. However, the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the party who lent the instant money to the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

On February 13, 2007, there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant and repaid KRW 70 million (hereinafter “the instant money”), and the Plaintiff issued the cashier’s checks of KRW 30 million at the point of the Jeonbuk Bank on March 7, 2005, and the fact that the Plaintiff issued the cashier’s checks of KRW 60 million on March 15, 2005, respectively.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the witness D’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleading, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the person who lent the instant money to the Defendant is the Plaintiff only by the facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant raises objection.