1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2009, with the maturity of payment fixed on June 30, 2009.

“The loan certificate of this case” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was written and drawn up, on November 23, 2009, the loan certificate stating that “The repayment of KRW 40 million shall be made not later than December 31, 2009” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case 2”).

B. Meanwhile, on November 14, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Jeonju District Court 2016Da24120, and received a decision to authorize the repayment plan on June 12, 2017 and on November 27, 2017.

On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection in the instant individual rehabilitation case, and submitted a written notification stating “the loan amount of KRW 130 million, KRW 55,947,041, the balance of principal, KRW 86,935,07, and KRW 142,882,118” to the Defendant’s creditor details. In response to this, the Plaintiff submitted a written notification to revise the repayment plan by revising the creditor’s list.

Accordingly, the list of individual rehabilitation creditors was finally recorded as the content of the above data transmission department, and the list of individual rehabilitation creditors was prepared as mentioned above.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including where there are separate numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties concerned did not repay the loan of KRW 40 million according to the loan certificate of this case from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the loan of KRW 40 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

The decision to authorize the repayment plan against the defendant is not stated in the plaintiff's loan claims based on the loan certificate of this case, but only stated only the loan claims based on the loan certificate of this case 1.

The plaintiff paid 30 million won in cash to the defendant according to the loan certificate of this case 1 and paid 100 million won on March 2, 2009.