1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 87,00,000 and its KRW 84,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 from May 1, 2008.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the current representative director C, and has the name of the vice president of the plaintiff, who is the representative director of the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant prepared and provided to the Plaintiff a letter stating that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 84 million, which was used by the Plaintiff from May 27, 2005 to December 23, 2005, up to April 30, 2008” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

C. Meanwhile, on June 30, 2009, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming return of unjust enrichment, etc. under this court No. 2009 Ghana12939, and the Nonparty Company sought the return of money paid to the Defendant, etc. in return for re-subcontracted by the Plaintiff.

The defendant, on October 22, 2009, issued by the non-party company on October 22, 2009, stated that "the non-party company will use three million won as attorney's fee and repay it until November 30, 2009" (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case").

3.3 million won was transferred to the account in the name of the attorney designated by the defendant on the same day. [Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant asserts that he did not prepare the letter of this case submitted with Gap evidence No. 1. However, according to the result of the appraiser F's written appraisal, each of the above documents contains the defendant's signature, etc., and its writing is recognized to be the defendant, so the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to be established.

In addition, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall, in principle, 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 statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005). The above facts, including each of the instant notes and the loan certificates, should be acknowledged.