1. The defendant shall pay 300,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from May 5, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 (a loan certificate) and the purport of the whole theory on the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the defendant borrowed KRW 300,000,000 to the plaintiff on November 6, 2016, but delivered a loan certificate stating that the amount of KRW 100,000,000 among them shall be refunded until January 30, 2017, and KRW 200,000,000 shall be returned until June 30, 2017. The fact that the plaintiff deposits KRW 300,00,000 to the defendant's bank account around that time is not disputed between the parties.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 5, 2020 to the day of full payment, which is the original copy of the payment order of this case sought by the plaintiff after the due date of the above loan, as the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000 and the above loan amount of the plaintiff.

The defendant's argument that the defendant's 300,000,000 won as stated in paragraph (1) was lent to the plaintiff corporation C (hereinafter "C") and the evidence No. 1 (the loan certificate) was drafted to the effect that the plaintiff had an intentional responsibility to the defendant who recommended the plaintiff to lend funds to the plaintiff or make an investment to the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff was temporarily prepared at the time when the representative director of C was not on the job, and that 300,000,000 won deposited in the defendant's account was delivered to C, and thus the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, as long as the establishment of a disposition document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, 19783, Feb. 15, 2017). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the evidence presented by the Defendant alone leased KRW 300,000,000 as stated in paragraph (1) to C.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and it is clear to deny the contents stated in Gap's No. 1 certificate (a loan certificate).