1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. The Defendant, based on the following facts, prepared a loan certificate with the following contents and ordered the Plaintiff.

On March 2, 2006, the amount of the loan certificate: 3,000,000 due date: June 12, 2006, the above amount will be borrowed and repaid on June 12, 2006.

On May 15, 2006: the due date for repayment of KRW 4,000,000: June 15, 2006; the above amount shall be borrowed on June 15, 2006; and shall be repaid by the due date.

On December 22, 2006, the amount of the loan certificate: 27,000,000 due date: January 31, 2007, the above amount was regularly borrowed, and would be repaid within the above date. [The grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant prepared each of the above loans and lent the amount under the loan certificate to the defendant.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not receive money from the plaintiff while preparing a certificate of loan 27,00,000 won by lending KRW 27,000,000 to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff did not receive money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff registered as a business operator for the multiple banks, brought about the loan 27,00,000 won in the name of the plaintiff, and brought about the loan 27,00,000 won in the name of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff received the deposit and the premium when closing the multiple banks, and there is no reason for the defendant to repay the loan 3,00,000 won, and that the loan 4,00,000 won was fully repaid, and that the loan 2,00,000 won was repaid.

B. In addition, the fact that each of the above facts was written on the basis of each of the above facts is not submitted at all to support the defendant's assertion, it is appropriate to determine that the plaintiff lent the money stated in each of the above loan certificates to the defendant.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid part of the borrowed money.

Therefore, the defendant's loan amounting to KRW 34,00,000 and the service of the complaint in this case is substituted for the plaintiff.