1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 44,80,000 as well as KRW 32,00,000 among them, from January 3, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. The facts in the separate sheet concerning the cause of the claim (However, since the Plaintiff has reduced the rate of damages for delay from the first date for pleading to 12% per annum, the damages for delay as stated in the separate sheet shall be deemed to be 15% per annum) do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1 to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the defendant did not organize the contents of the argument in detail in the written reply, it is determined that the defendant asserts as follows in full view of the contents of the written reply and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) The loan certificate (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence was prepared in advance by the Plaintiff and demanded that the Plaintiff be a private person to the Defendant, and was drafted in excess of the actual amount (hereinafter “the first share certificate”).

2) At present, the Defendant is under a situation in which it is unable to repay the amount claimed by the Plaintiff due to the direction for living, and in such a situation, it is unreasonable to demand the Defendant to pay an excessive amount.

(or) contrary to the principle of good faith (hereinafter referred to as “the second chapter”).

B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s judgment on the First Claim of the Defendant is without dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant confirmed, signed, and sealed the content of the instant loan certificate (Evidence A). In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content ought to be recognized, barring special circumstances where the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document is evident and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 2000). As alleged by the Defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the amount stated in the said loan certificate has been excessively unrefilledd, and there is no evidence to support that