1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 140,000,000 and its KRW 99,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,00,000 from January 17, 2019.

1. The parties’ assertion asserts that the Defendant should return KRW 140,000,000,000 according to the custody certificate (A evidence 1; hereinafter “the custody certificate of this case”) written by the Defendant around March 2013.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that ① the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case instead of C, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as it falls under the trust of this case, ② the plaintiff did not receive the custody money claimed by it, and there is no fact that the certificate of this case was prepared

2. Determination:

A. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 (the signature in the defendant's name can be acknowledged as the completion of the entire pleadings in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the written appraisal by appraiser D's written appraisal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established), the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she signed the custody of this case with the following content around March 2013.

The above amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000, which shall be received from A, and shall be returned immediately upon request.

If the return is not possible, I promise to assume all civil and criminal responsibilities.

B. The creditor of this case’s custody certificate of this case’s judgment as to the defense of this safety is clearly indicated as the plaintiff (this case’s custody certificate of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case

Therefore, this safety defense is without merit.

C. The defendant is obligated to return the custody money to the plaintiff as stated in the custody certificate of this case, which is a disposition document on the merits of this case.

However, the custody certificate of this case does not contain any indication of the due date, and the evidence No. 5 does not contain any signature of the defendant, and the authenticity of the evidence No. 4 cannot be recognized, and only the statement of the evidence No. 4 shall be returned to the defendant around March 12, 2014 or thereafter until the lawsuit of this case is brought.