1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 11, 2016, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) that contains the content that “the Defendant, on December 30, 2014, determined and lent KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2016 and at 25% per annum of interest” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On June 1, 2010 and October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff respectively remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s deposit account, and KRW 1 million on January 6, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) from 2005 to 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 10 million from the Defendant over three to four occasions, and thereafter, the Defendant paid KRW 61 million in total, including the principal amount of KRW 10 million and the interest amount exceeding the highest interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act.

(2) However, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to prepare the notarial deed of this case by demanding additional repayment of the principal and interest calculated at will, and the plaintiff must have no choice but to have the defendant prepare the notarial deed of this case even though it does not actually borrow 45 million won from the defendant.

(3) Therefore, there is no obligation to borrow 45 million won based on the instant notarial deed.

B. In light of the contents of the instant notarial deed, the amount of the loan claimed by the Plaintiff, and the details of the Plaintiff’s repayment, etc., it is difficult to view that the instant notarial deed was made with respect to KRW 10 million for the loan alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.