1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 2, 2008 to November 25, 2015; and (b) November 26, 2015.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 1, 2007, the Plaintiff leased KRW 60 million to the Defendant, C, and D on February 28, 2008, with the due date set as the maturity date of February 28, 2008. As the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million on December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 50 million and delay damages.

B. The defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and there is no fact that the defendant paid money.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant signed and sealed the cash custody certificate, but since C and D, the parent of the defendant, were arbitrarily done without the permission of the defendant, the defendant cannot be regarded as the debtor or the guarantor.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 as to whether the defendant is liable according to the contents of the cash custody certificate, according to the name of C, D, and defendant on October 1, 2007

(A) keep the said sum in cash and return it on February 28, 2008.

It can be recognized that the cash custody certificate has been prepared.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's name and seal of the defendant stated in the above cash custody certificate was made by C, and thus the defendant does not bear any liability based on the cash custody certificate. However, the following circumstances acknowledged based on the statement in subparagraph 2 of this Article and the purport of the whole testimony and pleadings by the plaintiff, namely, the defendant, a child of C and D, requested the defendant as the debtor while the plaintiff lent money, and the △△△△ requested the defendant as the debtor, a child of C and D, and the defendant did not have a field of preparing the cash custody certificate. However, although Eul stated that the defendant was at the scene at the time in the record of recording, it testified otherwise in the court of this case, but instead, it is known that the defendant was at the time, " not at that time," and "

It is known that it is an ebbs among the public.

The testimony was made “...”

On the contrary, the Defendant’s mother stated in the recording that “the Defendant had been in the office of the Plaintiff at the time”.

In full view of the foregoing, the Defendant’s snow history.