1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal against the instant principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance to the pertinent part, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) that the loan certificate is null and void is invalid since the Plaintiff demanded the preparation of the loan certificate in the form of a formal loan certificate, despite the fact that the Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the loan certificate in the form of convenience.

(2) Since the sales price of the instant road share, which was invalidated in excess of the sales price, is KRW 37,770,00,00, the portion exceeding the above sales price, among the instant loan obligations, is null and void, and the Defendant paid KRW 23,200,00 to the Plaintiff from October 8, 2008 to August 2013 (=4,00,000 per month x 58 months x 58 months) out of KRW 2,257,360 [23,20,00-(37,770,000 x 11.42% per annum x 12 x 58 months)]-2,352,219, the above amount claimed by the Defendant by the Plaintiff seems to be obvious error in calculation, and thus, it must be returned from the Plaintiff.

(3) At the time of the completion of the loan certificate of this case, there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “if any money is paid, the amount of the loan shall be paid, and if the money is not paid, the amount of the loan shall be paid at the time of disposal (sale).” However, since the road share of this case was not disposed of, the repayment period of the loan obligation of this case has not yet arrived.

B. (1) The court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the statement, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement, so long as the validity of the void disposition of loan is recognized as the authenticity of the statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da5456, Oct. 11, 1994). “A” without dispute over the establishment of this case is the loan certificate of this case.