The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the defendant's allegations in the court of first instance, except for the addition of the arguments in paragraph (2) below, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court is added to

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding "judgments on the defendant's grounds of appeal" to the following "2." Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's grounds for appeal

A. The defendant's assertion does not prepare a written statement of this case.

In other words, each of the instant notes was forged.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the agreement that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000,000 from the redevelopment compensation of the instant house” stated in the instant written statement is not accepted.

B. According to the following circumstances, the Defendant’s written statement No. 10-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings can be comprehensively identified in the judgment of the court below, based on the following circumstances:

Therefore, it cannot be said that the letter of this case is forged, and the existence of the agreement is recognized as stated in the letter of this case.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1) On June 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking a loan of KRW 70,000,000 against the Defendant, and submitted each of the instant documents as one of the evidence related thereto. 2) As to this, the Defendant denied the aforementioned lending from the preparatory documents dated September 17, 2019, but asserted that “the preparation process was the Plaintiff’s representative.” As to each of the instant documents, the Plaintiff argued that “if the instant housing was re-developed with respect to the fact that the said money was paid, the said money should be donated from the compensation amount.” On September 18, 2019, the Defendant stated the said preparatory documents on the first day for pleading of the first instance trial on September 18, 2019.

In other words, the defendant is the plaintiff of this case.