1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. It promises to repay in 200,000 won each month of the total of KRW 12,000,000 (12,000,000) on May 27, 2014.

B, on May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the loan certificates of this case”) on May 27, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would pay up to 10 million won to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff would have lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

The Defendant: (a) decided that the Plaintiff would repay the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff by making up the said KRW 2,000,000 for the said KRW 5,000 (10 million); (b) however, the said KRW 1,200 (1.2 million) was not paid after the first payment; and (c) the said KRW 5,000 (1.2 million) was paid after the payment of the said KRW 5,00,000.

On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff settled the above debt with the Defendant, and the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff had been discharged from the debt of KRW 12 million, and provided that the Plaintiff would repay the debt of KRW 200,000 per month.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on June 25, 2012, and the Plaintiff called the Plaintiff to repay the debt on the basis of the fraternity and the gold fraternity, and the Defendant repaid the debt on the basis of the Plaintiff’s settlement.

The Defendant, on May 27, 2014, prepared a certificate of borrowing to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2014, by deceiving the Defendant and compelling the Defendant to prepare a certificate of borrowing, as the Plaintiff was found in the Defendant’s business place and the Defendant received precious metals (gold) and had the obligation remain.

3. Determination

A. 1. Determination as to the cause of the claim of this case as to the existence of the Defendant’s obligation of this case, and as long as the authenticity of the disposition document is recognized, the court may deny the contents of the statement.