1. The defendant shall pay 25,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from May 26, 2006 to the day of complete payment.

1. The assertion;

A. The Defendant, while serving as management director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), introduced C’s business to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on May 26, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 25,000,000 to C, and the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) with respect to the above loan and jointly guaranteed it.

B. Although the defendant introduced C to the plaintiff, there is no fact that the loan certificate was prepared, and there is no fact that the joint and several surety was jointly and severally guaranteed.

2. Fact and determination

A. The facts of recognition 1) The defendant served as C's planning and management director around May 26, 2006, and introduced C, D, and E to the plaintiff. 2) The loan certificate (Evidence 1) (Evidence 1) contains a description that C (representative D) and E borrowed KRW 25,00,000 from the plaintiff on May 26, 2006 and that they will pay interest of 2% per month on the principal from the date of borrowing. The joint and several sureties's name, address, resident registration number, and telephone number are stated in the Defendant's name.

3) The writing recorded in the loan certificate (Evidence A) and the writing recorded in the original written statement prepared by the Defendant at the time of the written appraisal by this Court are similar. 4) The writing recorded in the signature and seal (Evidence A3) of the petitioner that the Defendant completed is similar to the writing recorded in the loan certificate (Evidence A1), and is similar to the writing recorded in each written document.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 4-1, Evidence No. 1, Results of appraiser F’s written appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) In light of the above facts, it is appropriate to determine that the Defendant prepared the documentary evidence of the loan (Evidence A1). 2) The Defendant asserted that the documentary evidence of the loan (Evidence A1) based on the documentary evidence No. 2 (written evidence) is not its own written evidence.

However, the defendant's writing, which is the evidence of Eul evidence 2 (written appraisal), appears to be different from the penology prepared by the defendant at the time of the written appraisal by this court, so it is insufficient to reverse the result of the written appraisal by the appraiser F based on the evidence No. 2 (written appraisal).

Therefore, the defendant's assertion.