1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of all the arguments.

On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a certificate of borrowing that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 420,000,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”) on February 19, 2014, and at any time at the time when the Plaintiff’s demand for repayment, the Plaintiff will pay the Plaintiff the money.” (Evidence 1, hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).

B. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the repayment of the instant loan by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

2. Determination

(a) Inasmuch as the authenticity of the judgment on the cause of the claim is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document;

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015).

B. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion is that C, who operated the temple as the Defendant or the Defendant, was donated to the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, and thus, there is no obligation to repay this to the Plaintiff.

The loan certificate of this case is null and void since it was written with false conspiracy under mutual recognition between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant has no obligation to repay the loan actually.

Even if the loan certificate of this case is not null and void, the defendant is against the plaintiff.