1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 25, 2007 to May 11, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that from August 2006 to January 2007, the defendant lent a total of KRW 25,000,000 to the defendant as interest rate of KRW 36% per annum. The plaintiff sought the payment of the above loan to the defendant by the claim of this case.

The Plaintiff is a document proving the above lending, and the Plaintiff submitted a certificate of borrowing (No. 1-1, hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of borrowing of this case”) and a letter (No. 2) prepared in the name of the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that although the plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 12,00,000,000 from the plaintiff, then he paid KRW 10,000,000 thereafter, the balance of the loan is only KRW 2,00,000.

The validity of the loan certificate of this case includes the fact that the defendant borrowed KRW 25,00,000 from the plaintiff on January 25, 2007 and the interest rate of KRW 3% per month, respectively, and the defendant borrowed KRW 25,000 from the plaintiff on April 25, 2007, and the seal of the defendant's name is affixed on the defendant's name.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the seal affixed to the loan certificate of this case or there is no consent to the preparation thereof, and denies the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case.

However, according to the result of appraisal of each seal of appraiser C and D, it is recognized that the stamp image of this case is different from that of the stamp image of the defendant himself/herself and that of the stamp image attached to the loan certificate of this case (the above stamp image is recognized as identical to that of the stamp image of the defendant himself/herself according to the result of appraisal of each stamp image as above).

If so, it is difficult to view the seal of the loan certificate of this case as being owned by the defendant.

Although it was not clearly revealed that the Defendant issued the certificate of the personal seal impression to the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have confirmed and consented to the content of the loan certificate, insofar as the seal of this case is not identical with the Defendant’s seal.

Unlike the defendant, the loan certificate of this case is the defendant.