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.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff has a cash custody certificate (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter referred to as "the cash custody certificate of this case") in two consecutive forms in which the defendant's name is sealed, on the last day, written as "No. 2,400,000 full-time keeping the above amount with a promise to pay it by August 30, 200, with a promise to pay it by August 30, 202, March 5, 2002, and C Cash Custodians B" and the defendant's name is stored in two consecutive forms.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff remitted 4 million won to D on March 5, 2003 to D, and then lent 2.4 million won which D withdrawn, to D, to the defendant at least 2:00 p.m. on the same day, and received the above cash custody certificate from the defendant, and the payment deadline and the "2002 year" in the above cash custody certificate were erroneously stated "203 years." Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the loan 2.4 million won to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

On March 5, 2003, the defendant asserts that there was no fact of borrowing KRW 2.4 million from the plaintiff from the plaintiff.

B. According to the results of the written appraisal by appraiser E of the first instance trial on the cash custody certificate of this case, it is recognized that the pen of this case and the defendant's pen of this case are observed together with the similar points and different points on the left side of the bottom of the cash custody certificate, and the similar points and difference points on B on the right side of the bottom of the cash custody certificate, and the defendant's pen of the pen and the similar points are observed together, but more similar points are observed, and according to the results of the written appraisal by appraiser E of the first instance trial on the cash custody certificate of this case, it is recognized that each defendant's pen and the defendant's pen on the left side and right side of the cash custody certificate of this case are highly likely to be written by the same person, and according to the statement by appraiser E of the first instance trial on the cash custody certificate of this case, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted 4 million won to D on March 5, 2003, while it is also acknowledged that Gap evidence No. 3, No. 1 and No. 7.