1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 23,500,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 3, 2014 to February 5, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant around March 21, 2007 without setting the due date and interest, and the defendant may recognize the fact that he did not repay the debt even though he was urged to repay the debt several times by the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the principal of the loan amounting to KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant is not a conspiracy, false representation, or false expression of intent, first of all, that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) with only one cash custody certificate showing his/her father’s father as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to do so, and the Plaintiff actually borrowed money from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the expression of intent to bear the obligation of the instant cash custody certificate of this case can be revoked as a false declaration of intention, not a false declaration of intention, which is invalid or

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 2’s overall purport of pleading, namely, the plaintiff submitted some financial data corresponding to the purport of the cash custody certificate of this case, including financial data remitted KRW 30 million to the defendant around April 19, 2004, and KRW 8 million around March 18, 2005, and the defendant without any special relationship with the plaintiff, who only keeps a large amount of money worth KRW 50 million to the plaintiff’s his/her father’s father’s his/her father, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a special circumstance to prepare such false cash custody certificate. Thus, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is recognized that the cash custody certificate of this case was falsely prepared for the purpose of presenting it to the plaintiff’s father’s father’s father.