1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 3, 2016 to September 28, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 6, 2006, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate from the Defendant that the Defendant repaid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The loan certificate of this case states that the loan certificate of this case does not state the repayment period separately, but it is stated that the loan certificate of this case can be repaid as resolved.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above agreed amount of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. Defendant’s assertion (1) First, the Defendant asserts that the instant loan certificate was prepared without any cause and thus null and void. However, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no act of causing the instant loan certificate only with the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 5, and as long as the Defendant prepared the instant loan certificate with the intent to repay KRW 30,000,000 with the intent to pay KRW 30,000, it cannot be deemed null and void, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

(2) Next, the defendant alleged that the act of preparing the loan certificate of this case is null and void as a false conspiracy, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Next, the defendant asserts that the act of drawing up the loan certificate of this case is null and void as a declaration of intention by flag, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(4) Next, the Defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was derived from borrowing KRW 40,00,000 from the Plaintiff on December 16, 2002, and that the Defendant paid KRW 96,00,000 to the Plaintiff in excess of the principal and interest of KRW 40,000,00, but the Defendant paid KRW 96,000 to the Plaintiff on the basis of the loan certificate of this case, the Defendant’s burden of payment to the Plaintiff on the basis of the loan certificate of this case goes against the public order and good morals, and thus, is null and void. However, the written statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5 alone are alone.