1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, as to the cause of the claim, is obligated to pay the Defendant the above KRW 20 million and delay damages for the loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the interest rate of KRW 20 million,00,000,000,000 on October 17, 201, and KRW 17,000,000 on December 11, 201, set the due date for repayment as KRW 30,000 on December 30, 201, and the interest rate of KRW 5,00 per annum as 5% on December 30, 2012, as there is no dispute between the parties, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's defense that around July 2013, the plaintiff returned the original loan (hereinafter "the original loan of this case") stating the contents of the loan of this case to the defendant and destroyed it, and the plaintiff would no longer claim the loan of this case.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to return the original copy of the loan certificate of this case to the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence of Nos. 1 through 5, No. 11, 13, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 27 and the overall purport of the pleadings.

① The Plaintiff submitted a copy of the instant loan certificate without submitting the original copy, up to the trial.

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the original of the instant loan was lost in the process of the Plaintiff’s director and the Defendant did not prove the details of the loss. Considering that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had been in an internal relationship for a long time since 2009 and had been in a pecuniary problem, it cannot be accepted that the Plaintiff lost the original of the instant loan, which is a valuable documentary evidence that the Plaintiff could demand the return of the loan to the Defendant. Moreover, it is difficult to accept the fact that the original of the instant loan had been lost, and that the original of the loan was kept in custody, contrary to the empirical rule

② From the beginning of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant asserted from the Plaintiff that the original loan certificate was returned to the Plaintiff and discarded, and the Plaintiff claimed as the duplicate.