1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On March 20, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she agreed to lend KRW 30 million in cash to the Defendant, who is his/her wife, and received the instant loan certificate (Evidence A 1) from the Defendant on March 15, 2017. Since the Plaintiff was provided with information on completion of registration and notice on completion of registration as to the registration under the name of the Defendant, racing-si, which was awarded a successful tender under the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

2. The loan certificate of this case cannot be admitted as evidence, as there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the loan certificate.

In addition, considering all other evidences submitted by the Plaintiff on November 25, 2014, considering the fact that the Plaintiff possessed the above documents related to the ownership and management of the apartment house in the name of the Defendant (Evidence A 2-10), and the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from E Co., Ltd. on November 25, 2014 (Evidence A 11), it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the ordinary method of offering collateral, the above loan and the time difference between the loan alleged by the Plaintiff, etc.

3. The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.