1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserted that on August 23, 1996, the plaintiff was notarized by the defendant and his wife C, and lent 4,80,000 won to the defendant's husband and wife on the same day, but he was paid only 1,80,000 won among them and did not receive the remainder of 3 million won, and that the plaintiff claimed payment of the amount stated in the claim to the defendant.

2. According to Gap evidence No. 1 (notarial deed of a Promissory Notes) submitted by the plaintiff, the above promissory note No. 1 was notarized by the plaintiff alone as an agent of the defendant and C. In light of Eul's testimony to the purport that "the name of the defendant in the issuer column of the Promissory Notes was written voluntarily by the defendant, not by the defendant," it is difficult to conclude that the above evidence and the statement of evidence No. 2 are merely borrowing KRW 4.8 million from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(The above evidence alone is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant entrusted C with the right to borrow KRW 4.8 million on behalf of the plaintiff). Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is revoked by the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It is so decided as per Disposition.