1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 16, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on April 3, 2017 under which the Plaintiff leased KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant without fixing the due date for payment (hereinafter “Agreement on Loan for Consumption”), and transferred KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant’s account on the same day.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 300,000,000 and damages for delay from December 16, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, deemed to have elapsed from the time when the Plaintiff notified the return thereof.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant affixed a blank objection to the purport that Gap evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document of the loan agreement of this case (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), is written after signing and sealing by the defendant in blank. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. Defendant’s defense 1) The summary of the Defendant’s defense was that the Defendant had a claim against the net C with a promissory note amounting to KRW 300,000,000,000. However, as the net C died on November 6, 2015, D, the actual operator of the Plaintiff, as one inheritor, transferred KRW 300,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account on April 3, 2017, under the name of repayment for the Defendant’s claim for promissory notes, as the Plaintiff’s account, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to prepare a certificate of loan for accounting. Therefore, the agreement on the loan for consumption of this case is invalid as a false declaration of agreement. 2) If the authenticity of the instrument is established, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that could deny the content of the agreement. b) The net C, as of April 13, 1993.