1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 21, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. The Plaintiff: (a) lent a total of KRW 4.5 million to the Defendant, who was an ancient Dong-dong, over several times until 2009; and (b) asserted that the Defendant received the certificate of loan loan No. 1 from the Defendant on August 21, 2010 as evidence; and (c) sought a return of the loan amount of KRW 100 million as a part of the claim.

2. On January 25, 2018, at the first date for pleading, the Defendant recognized the authenticity of the evidence No. 1, and did not respond separately to the instant statement of the court ordering the Plaintiff to submit a written response to the Plaintiff’s assertion. On June 1, 2018, the process of preparing the evidence No. 1 in the legal brief submitted after the third date for pleading was submitted, the Plaintiff’s denial was found at the time, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to have his/her intent to have his/her intent to use the evidence of the said allegation, and the Defendant also did not submit the evidence as to the said allegation, even though the Defendant alleged that he/she was aware of the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her responsibility, since he/she was able to use the said evidence as a guarantor when introducing funds to the Defendant.

Even if the Defendant’s assertion that “A evidence No. 1 was made by the coercion of the Plaintiff, and thus the confession as to the establishment of a confession is revoked on the first date for pleading,” the confession as to the establishment of a confession as to the establishment of a confession as to the establishment of a confession is related to the fact of assistance, but with the revocation of confession as to the principal facts, the confession can be revoked only by the party who made the confession proving “the confession is not in conformity with the truth and is due to mistake” (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da8244, Jan. 11, 191), and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

After the closing of argument, the defendant filed a new argument as to whether the signature on the evidence A No. 1 was not his own, and applied for the resumption of argument. However, the defendant's repeated changes in the above defendant's statement do not fit the truth and confessions.