1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,000,000 with the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant, on the same day, prepared and rendered the instrument of borrowing (hereinafter “the instrument of borrowing”).

Japan: 30,000,000 regularly borrowed the above amounts.

The date of repayment shall be KRW 60,000,000 as of September 28, 2010 and shall be drawn up the above loan certificate.

B. On November 24, 2010, the Defendant drafted and rendered to the Plaintiff a letter of payment with the following content (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).

Japan:60,000,000 won shall be paid to the Defendant by November 30, 2010 and the remainder shall also be paid by the end of December 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On September 17, 2010, the plaintiff's assertion 1) the summary of the plaintiff's assertion was lent KRW 30,000,00 to the defendant on September 17, 2010, and the defendant agreed to refund KRW 60,000,000 from the defendant until September 28, 2010. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,00,000 and the delay damages therefor. 2) The plaintiff's summary of the defendant's assertion was not paid the above KRW 30,00,000 to the defendant on September 17, 2010, but paid it under the name of C (hereinafter "C"), so it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's claim for the loan.

B. 1) First, as to the name of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 30,00,00 to the Defendant, a health care unit, and as long as the formation of a disposal document is genuine, the court should 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 counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753, Jun. 11, 2002).