1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The party's assertion and its determination

A. A. Around August 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant, a de facto business operator of a restaurant, as a restaurant operation fund. At the time the loan certificate of this case was prepared, the Plaintiff said that himself was the Defendant’s spouse, and the name of the restaurant operator was the Defendant, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20,000,000 in the passbook in the name of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to repay the loan (the Plaintiff received a demand for explanation of the cause of the claim at the trial, but did not assert any other cause of claim other than the previous loan claim.

(2) The Defendant lent the name of restaurant operator to C, and the head of the Industrial Bank of Korea Tong in the name of the Defendant also used by C.

However, the defendant divorced with C on October 20, 2010, and even thereafter C operated the restaurant independently, and C borrowed money from the plaintiff around August 2012.

The defendant does not borrow money from the plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment. The defendant asserts that there is no evidence of Gap evidence No. 1 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), and the plaintiff is C who prepared the loan certificate of this case as the former spouse of the defendant, and the unmanned on the name of the defendant stated in the loan certificate of this case is Eul. The plaintiff is the person who prepared the loan certificate of this case, and the unmanned on the name of the defendant stated in the loan certificate of this case is accompanied by C

Thus, there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the loan certificate of this case cannot be used as evidence of this case.

Meanwhile, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant can recognize the fact of divorce with C on October 20, 2010, and there is no other evidence to deem that the defendant is operating the restaurant with C even though he/she was divorced with C.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the loan of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's objection.