1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff became aware of the defendant while in office as a public official of the male viewing around February 1999, and actually lived as married couple from May 2003 to January 201.

The name holder of the document is the defendant and the date on which the document was drawn up, on April 29, 2009, the loan certificate (No. 1; hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case") written on April 29, 200 includes the following contents:

The defendant shall borrow from the plaintiff in cash the amount of the above n.e., n. 25,000,000 Won Won Won ( n.e., n. 25,000).

The principal shall be repaid in full by December 31, 2013, and interest shall be paid in a lump sum according to the interest rate of 10% per annum.

The loan certificate shall bear the seal imprint and shall be accompanied by the seal imprint certificate issued on May 14, 2008 to verify the seal imprint and attached to the certificate of gift kept by the plaintiff.

On December 30, 2013 and January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a demand note to the Defendant that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 25,000,000 from the Plaintiff in cash from the Plaintiff on April 29, 2009 and drafted the instant loan certificate, thereby paying the principal and interest.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Nos. 4-1, 2, 35, and 37-1, 2, 35, and 37-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings was claimed by the plaintiff, while running the illegal bond business.

Accordingly, on April 29, 2009, the Plaintiff lent 25,000,000 won to the Defendant’s residence in cash, and received a seal imprint from the Defendant on the loan certificate of this case, and requested a copy of the certificate of personal seal impression to verify the seal imprint and the resident registration certificate verifying the identity to attach it to the loan certificate of this case.

The Plaintiff promised to pay interest of 10% per annum on December 31, 2013 when the Defendant repaid the principal to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant did not demand payment. However, the payment date is the above.