1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 as well as its full payment from May 8, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 7, 2010, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan to the effect that “a loan is borrowed with interest of KRW 1 million from the Plaintiff as of June 7, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”); (b) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1 million from the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

B. On the other hand, on May 7, 2010, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered a confirmation document regarding the case of Cheongju District Court 2009Da14722 (hereinafter “service costs case”); and (b) attended the court of the service costs case as a witness and testified on May 20, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On May 7, 2010, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 1 million to the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 20%, and due date of payment on June 7, 2010. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan and interest or delay compensation. 2) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to have the Defendant present himself as a witness in the court of the service cost case and prepare a confirmation document regarding the service cost case. In return, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million in advance, and paid the remainder KRW 4 million in advance, and then made a verbal agreement to pay the Defendant the remainder to the Plaintiff after the completion of the above testimony. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant prepared and issued the instant loan certificate to secure the performance of the testimony.

Therefore, the above KRW 1 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is not a loan title, but pursuant to the above agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s loan claim.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the above one million won.