1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 240,000,000 and KRW 100,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 from February 15, 201.

Basic Facts

On February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to lend KRW 100 million to 12% per annum without setting the due date for repayment.

On February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 15 million in excess of the above loan under the agreement, either directly or through C, and additionally paid KRW 35 million on February 28, 201.

On May 17, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to lend a total of KRW 140 million, including KRW 20 million paid in excess of the above agreement, at 12% per annum, without fixing the due date for repayment.

On May 17, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant respectively, KRW 20 million on May 19, 201, KRW 10 million on May 31, 2011, KRW 10 million on May 31, 2011, KRW 50 million on June 3, 201, and KRW 120 million on June 16, 201.

[Reasons] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings [the defendant acknowledged the authenticity of the defendant's seal impression affixed on Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (a serial number) but argued that the above loan certificate was forged. However, once the authenticity of the seal imprint is acknowledged, the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established. Thus, since the document is presumed to have been forged, the person who asserts that the document is forged must actively prove that the above seal imprint was affixed against the will of the holder of the title deed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). The defendant fails to submit any evidence supporting that the above seal imprint was forged. Accordingly, the defendant's argument in this part is without merit], when the loan for consumption does not determine the cause of the claim, the lender shall demand the return by fixing a reasonable period of time (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act) and the notice of return can arrive after the expiration of the due period of time.

(See Supreme Court Decision 63Da131 delivered on May 9, 1963).