1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 1, 2013 to July 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, on November 13, 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above loans and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff lent KRW 44 million to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant does not have to borrow 44 million won from the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In cases where a contractual party prepares in writing a certain contractual content between the parties to a contract, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized as the existence of the expression, unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the content of the statement.

(Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.) B.

In light of the above legal principles, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established since the defendant's name stated in the above loan certificate is recognized as identical to the defendant's pen book, and since the defendant's name stated in the above loan certificate is stated in the above loan certificate, but the amount and the period of repayment are not stated. However, even if the loan is based on the land, the amount and the name of the pen, resident registration number, and address are the same as the pen book stated in the payment period. Thus, considering the whole purport of the oral argument in light of the whole purport of the oral argument, the defendant's above assertion is insufficient to deem that the defendant borrowed the above amount on August 31, 2013, the above amount and the repayment period will be repaid within the above date, and the plaintiff's return was prepared on November 13, 2012, and the evidence submitted by the defendant on August 31, 2014.