1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment below.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant and D reported marriage, and they were married to their husband and wife, and they divorced on March 18, 2003.

B. On August 12, 201, there is a loan certificate stating that the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff on August 12, 201, with a maturity of KRW 600,000,000 per month of interest, and D guarantees that, as of August 12, 2011 (Evidence A 2-1, hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”).

C. The appraiser F of the trial appraised that the completion of the loan certificate in this case’s name, resident registration number, and address part and the completion of each written on the Defendant’s pen and work log differs from each other. The appraiser G of the trial party assessed that the completion of the loan certificate in this case’s name, resident registration number, address part, and the Defendant’s pen and the transaction application prepared by the Defendant are the same.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, each entry (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraiser F, and G's result of written appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff requires lease deposit of KRW 30 million, signboard expenses, operating funds, etc. of Hcafeteria that the Defendant operated. The Plaintiff’s mother I determined and lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant as of August 12, 201 through Hcafeteria and received the instant loan certificate. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 40 million and delay damages for the loan of KRW 40 million. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not borrow KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff prepared and issued the instant loan certificate.

The loan certificate of this case was forged in the name of the defendant when D, the former wife of the defendant, borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the loan certificate of this case was not written by the defendant.

B. Determination of the cause of the claim 1 is the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case.