1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 23,500,000 as well as to the plaintiff on December 8, 2017.

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, it is recognized that the defendant prepared each loan certificate to the plaintiff, stating as follows: ① "The amount of rent is KRW 6,50,000, the interest monthly payment on July 14, 2015, the third day of the maturity of the loan, and the borrower on July 25, 2015, ② "the borrower is KRW 17,00,000, the borrowed amount is KRW 15,715, July 15, 2015, the interest monthly payment, the third day of the loan, the due date of the repayment, August 15, 2015, and the borrower."

As long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the written statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da235647, Jul. 12, 2018). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff losses incurred by delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for change of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is obliged to pay 25,200,000 won for storage of warehouse (=62 months from June 16, 2014 to December 2017 x 60,000 won) to the defendant's warehouse located in Ssung City from June 16, 2014, since the plaintiff keeps two of five tons vehicles, such as business diffusions and tablers, etc., in the defendant's warehouse located in Ssung City. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay 25,20,000 won to the defendant from June 16, 2014 to December 2017.

The video of the evidence No. 1 is not enough to admit the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, so it is modified as per Disposition of the judgment of the first instance.

The plaintiff served a written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case.