1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 100,000,000, USD 24,000 in U.S. dollars, and each of the said amounts, from January 16, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of exporting, importing, etc. of used cars.

Since 2011, the defendant has been engaged in transactions in which the defendant was supplied with heavy cars from the plaintiff on credit and sold them, and pays the price.

B. From March 2011 to May 2013, 201, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with heavy automobiles equivalent to USD 1,801,09,000 and USD 25,000 in U.S. dollars. The Plaintiff received KRW 1,697,624,00 from the Defendant.

C. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant drafted and rendered to the Plaintiff a payment note (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant payment note”) that “I, by January 15, 2014, undertake to repay USD 100,000 to the Plaintiff the attempted vehicle amounting to KRW 100,000 and USD 24,000 to the United States currency.”

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (written rejection, defendant's assertion that it was forged, but considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the witness Eul's testimony, the defendant's direct signature is acknowledged), Gap evidence 3 to 6 (including paper numbers), witness Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement. In a case where there is a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall comprehensively consider the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60172 Decided August 17, 2012). B.

The Defendant, as seen above, prepared the instant letter of payment, in a special manner.