1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Determination as to loan claims

A. On September 10, 2007, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan of KRW 140,000,000 to the Defendant with the maturity of February 28, 2009. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 140,000,000, interest thereon, and delay damages.

B. Determination 1) In the event that the Defendant’s signature, which is the name of the document written in the disposal document, does not dispute the Defendant’s own seal, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established without any explanation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16383, Feb. 13, 1990). As long as the formation of the disposal document is authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the contents of the document, barring any dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 140,00,000 to the Defendant on Sept. 10, 207, and the Plaintiff’s signature and seal of KRW 140,000 to the Plaintiff on Feb. 13, 1990, and the Plaintiff’s signature and seal of KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff on Feb. 29, 2008.

If it is impossible to resell after the purchase, the cash custody certificate was prepared and issued without receiving the down payment in the sense that it would return the principal received as the purchase price, and the above transaction did not eventually take place. Therefore, the cash custody certificate is alleged to the effect that the above cash custody certificate has no effect. However, the above cash custody certificate is true, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to the extent that it is alleged by the defendant.