1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can be found to have remitted KRW 30 million to the defendant on July 7, 2017.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, on October 16, 2016, the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating that "the plaintiff borrowed approximately KRW 33 million from January 200 and redeems the above amount including interest from 2018" (the plaintiff recognizes the authenticity of the above loan certificate, but there is no evidence to prove that the false statement is different from the fact at the defendant's request, but there is no evidence to prove that it is different from the fact). In this regard, the defendant asserts that prior to the lending of KRW 73 million to the plaintiff, the defendant prepared the above loan certificate and received KRW 30 million from the plaintiff.

However, the above loan certificate is a disposal document, and barring special circumstances, the plaintiff must be deemed to have borrowed money from the defendant as stated in the above loan certificate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da1013, Jan. 21, 2000). The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be acknowledged as a clear and acceptable special reason to deny the entries in the above loan certificate. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the defendant as above, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. The plaintiff's claim is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.