1. The Defendant jointly with B and C, as well as KRW 53,400,00,00, and as to the Plaintiff, from October 1, 2012 to July 8, 2017.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 through No. 3 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of all the arguments, defendant, Eul, and Eul, and Eul, on September 7, 2012, have the obligation to prepare and deliver a loan certificate stating that "the borrowed amount of KRW 53,400,000, borrowed the borrowed amount from the plaintiff and promised to repay the borrowed amount until September 30, 2012" (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case") between the plaintiff and Eul and the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case"). Thus, the defendant has the obligation to pay the plaintiff 53,400,000 won in collaboration with the plaintiff as of October 1, 2012, from the day following the repayment date to July 8, 2017, the original copy of the payment order of this case, with 5% per annum per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 15% per annum.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that B and C are responsible for and repaid the money stated in the loan certificate of this case, and the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted because it does not have any means to borrow money from the plaintiff. Thus, we cannot accept the defendant's argument, so long as the disposal document is acknowledged as genuine, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents of the statement are denied, the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document should be recognized, and the above loan certificate of this case was reproduced by the defendant's seal. In light of the above, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to deny the contents of the loan certificate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.