1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim according to the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate”) written and delivered by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff on October 30, 2017, which is stated as KRW 150,000,000 and due date for repayment on January 30, 2018.

2. Determination:

A. According to the statement No. 1 and the witness C’s testimony, C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, may recognize the fact that, on October 30, 2017, C, as the loan amounting to KRW 150,000,000, the due date for repayment, and the debtor column of the loan certificate of this case stated as of January 30, 2018, attached the name of the Defendant Company’s corporate director and deliver it to the Plaintiff.

(b) However, as long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any counter-proof, and shall not reject it without any reasonable explanation, but where there exists any counter-proof or reasonable grounds to see the content of the document as contrary to the objective truth, the court may reject the probative value thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 93Da57117 Decided February 8, 1994; 2006Da27055 Decided September 14, 2006; 201Da25251 Decided July 14, 201, etc.). (C)

In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances, the loan certificate of this case contains KRW 150,00,000 and the debtor’s corporate director’s seal affixed to the loan certificate of this case, although the defendant company borrowed KRW 150,00,000 from the plaintiff, although the loan certificate of this case contains KRW 150,00,000,00,000, which is acknowledged by comprehensively considering the descriptions of Gap’s evidence Nos. 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the testimony of Eul.

It is difficult to view that the Defendant Company agreed to pay KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant company did not actually borrow KRW 150,000,000 from the plaintiff on October 30, 2017, as well as the time the loan certificate of this case was prepared.