1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on 80,000.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

Facts of recognition

A. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff, who is qualified as an optician, operated an optician store with the trade name “C” (hereinafter “C”), and closed the business around March 2015.

B. The Defendant holds a photographic file of a loan certificate dated 1, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) recorded as follows.

The “creditor(A)” of the instant loan certificate refers to the name of the Defendant, and the “debtor(B)” refers to the name of the Defendant and D (the Defendant’s identity).

(hereinafter “instant loan”). Article 1: (A) “A” lends KRW 80 million to “A” on July 1, 2014; (b) the obligor “B” borrowed this.

Article 2: The maturity of the borrowed money shall be May 31, 2015.

The payment of interest of KRW 1.2 million per month from March 1, 2015 to the repayment of the principal and interest shall be made in advance. Article 3: If the repayment of the principal and interest has been delayed, the debtor shall pay the delayed loss and may be legally liable.

Article 4:Performance of Obligations shall be transferred to a designated passbook ( bank, account number omitted, defendant).

Article 5:The debtor B accepted the compulsory execution of his entire property in the event of his default.

C. On June 16, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the Plaintiff urged the Plaintiff to pay the borrowed amount of KRW 80 million on the ground that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 80 million from the Defendant, as indicated in the instant loan certificate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (the plaintiff is disputing the establishment of the authenticity of Eul evidence No. 2, and such authenticity is recognized as follows). The plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings and the part in the name of the plaintiff in the loan No. 1 was forged.

The defendant from August 2014 to October 2014.