1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. As of July 15, 2014, the Defendant prepared “cash carnets” (Evidence A) with the purport that “The amount is KRW KRW 30,000 (30,000), address: Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101-dong 1705, name: B (Defendant) and the said person regularly borrowed KRW 3,000,000 in cash and paid on July 15, 2014 and paid on August 30, 2014” with the content that “The fact that the Defendant, as of July 15, 2014, is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the due date for reimbursement on August 30, 2014. Among them, the Defendant was paid KRW 10 million from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loans to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay.

(2) Around 2014, Defendant was subject to investigation on the charge of offering of bribe.

The plaintiff, in the case of the police assistant group in the Jeonju region, was well aware of the executive officers of the Marine Corps, and demanded that the executive officers be given a bribe in order to resolve the defendant's case without problem, and 100 million won in return for investigation.

Accordingly, the Defendant prepared three copies of cash tea in 10 million won and 30 million won, and delivered a total of KRW 100 million. The cash tea certificate submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence in this case is one of three copies of the cash tea certificate prepared by the Defendant as above.

The plaintiff is convicted of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim against the defendant the monetary amount based on the above loan certificate.

B. Facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 9 to 13.

(1) On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the following criminal facts in the Seoul Southern District Court 2017Gohap51 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

"The plaintiff shall be an assistant governor of D, an incorporated association, who sells the articles of the Marine Corps.