1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2004, the original and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed as to a monetary loan contract for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the Plaintiff borrowed 50 million won from the Defendant on August 10, 2004 at the interest rate of 24% per annum and February 25, 2005,” which read that “the Plaintiff borrowed 50 million won from the Defendant on February 10, 2004, which was set by the due date of payment period of February 25, 2005.”

B. On July 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Jeonju District Court (1498, 2006Hadan1432) on bankruptcy and application for immunity, and was declared bankrupt on April 27, 2007, and the exemption of immunity on June 29, 2007 was confirmed on July 28, 2007, and the aforementioned exemption of immunity became final and conclusive on July 28, 2007. The Plaintiff did not enter claims on the instant Notarial Deed in the creditors list while filing the bankruptcy and application for immunity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. In order for the Defendant to borrow money to the Plaintiff, the Defendant intended to pretend that the Defendant would receive money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff prepared the instant notarial deed in response to the Defendant’s demand, but did not actually borrow money.

Therefore, the notarial deed of this case is based on an invalid contract as a false conspiracy, and there is no obligation based thereon.

B. Even if there exists an obligation on the Notarial Deed of this case, as long as the Plaintiff was exempted from liability, the said obligation also becomes effective.

3. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation (main claim). There is no evidence to prove that the notarial deed of this case was made out on the basis of a false monetary loan contract.

Rather, according to Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the defendant's statements are as follows: (a) KRW 280,000 on May 11, 2004; (b) KRW 160,000 on May 14, 2004; (c) KRW 5,500 on May 28, 2004; (d) KRW 4920,00 on July 6, 2004; and (e) KRW 15 million on July 26, 2004.