1. The Defendant’s KRW 97,500,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 1, 2015 to September 8, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 177 million to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant drafted a certificate of loan with the purport that the Defendant would repay the loan by May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “certificate of loan”).

B. On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant’s account in KRW 20 million, KRW 20 million on February 28, 2015, and KRW 85 million on March 4, 2015, respectively, and deposited KRW 50 million into the Defendant’s account on March 5, 2015.

C. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant drafted a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the content that the Defendant would purchase the land of Jung-gu Daejeon and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from B from Daejeon to KRW 1.7 billion (the contract amounting to KRW 150 million, the remainder of KRW 1.55 million, and the remainder of KRW 1.55 million).

[In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 177 million to the Defendant.

B. The loan certificate of this case was falsely prepared as a means of the Plaintiff’s tax evidence, and the Plaintiff did not lend KRW 177 million to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant real estate jointly with D, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with B on behalf of the Plaintiff, etc.

The Defendant received money from the Plaintiff as the down payment, etc. of the said sales contract, and the Defendant remitted the said money to B’s account as the down payment.

3. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant on February 16, 2015, as a loan in the name of a loan for purchasing a new house site for a new house factory, KRW 20 million,000,000,000 to the Defendant on February 16, 2015 (No. 4 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings).

In a case where the authenticity of a loan of KRW 77.5 million related to the instant sales contract is recognized, the court shall declare its intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the instant disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the content of the statement.