1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion actually lent money to C by deceiving the plaintiff, and thus, the certificate of loan and promissory note in the name of the plaintiff was written, and it was notarized.

Therefore, a monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void as a false agreement under Article 108 of the Civil Code. Since a notarial deed based on the above loan contract is also null and void, the judgment like the purport of the claim

2. Since a notarial deed for a loan for consumption on the market is a disposal document proving the existence of a claim itself, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, the obligor, bears the burden of proof for the absence or extinguishment of a claim stated in the notarial deed of this case, and the Defendant, the obligee, does not have to prove the occurrence of a claim stated in the notarial deed of this case through other evidence.

It is difficult to conclude that only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is based on the false declaration of intention that the monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was in collusion with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant and entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed in accordance with his/her own intent, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number).

① From June 21, 2012 to November 3, 2012, the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 181 million to the Plaintiff’s account.

② On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression to the Defendant.

③ On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note as “amounting to KRW 200 million and date of payment: June 30, 2013”; on the same day, the Plaintiff made an authentic deed on the said promissory note to a notary public.