1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 26,693,50 and KRW 22,777,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,916,50 from April 16, 2013.

On May 18, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff and lent the said money to the Defendant by repaying the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 20 million against the Defendant’s cross agricultural cooperative.

In around 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,777,00 to the Defendant’s certified judicial scrivener’s expenses. Around 2012, the Plaintiff applied for voluntary auction based on the right to collateral held by the Defendant on the attached list (hereinafter “instant real property”), which was established on real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and then withdrawn the auction, and then paid KRW 3,916,500.

Accordingly, on July 24, 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 26,693,500,000 (=20,000,7777,000 won KRW 2,916,50) plus the expenses for a certified judicial scrivener and auction incurred by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 26,693,50,000) to the loan for consumption, and (ii) prepare and deliver a cash custody certificate (Evidence 5-1, 50,00) to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 26,693,50 and damages for delay.

The Plaintiff alleged on May 18, 201 that the Defendant’s assertion repaid a loan of KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s cross-agricultural cooperative on behalf of the Defendant, but it is not a separate loan to the Defendant whether the Plaintiff and C have repaid the money acquired by deception from the Defendant prior to the repayment, or not.

Although it was true that the plaintiff paid the expenses for a certified judicial scrivener by proxy of the defendant, since the defendant from time to time lent money to the plaintiff, it does not remain a claim for refund of the plaintiff's expenses when offsetting the loan claims, and since the expenses incurred in the withdrawal of the plaintiff's application for a voluntary auction on the real estate of this case is irrelevant to the defendant, the defendant is not obligated to

As such, since the defendant did not bear any obligation against the plaintiff, there is no reason to prepare a cash custody certificate, there is no document prepared, and subparagraphs 5-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 5 are forged and sealed by the plaintiff, or between the defendant and the defendant without the defendant.