1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B and D are siblings, and the Plaintiff is the children of D, and Defendant C is the children of Defendant B.

B. On April 25, 2011, the Defendants drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of non-acceptance of loan (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) with the following content.

The name of the debtor of the sum of KRW 30 million (30,00,000): Defendant C, other than Defendant C, may be extended or shortened by one year in borrowing the said sum, and may be extended or shortened by mutual agreement thereafter.

The interest rate shall be applied to the bank interest rate, and the payment date of interest shall be determined on the 14th of each month.

In respect of all other matters, including the natural body of the borrower, all liabilities shall be borne by the borrower, and the borrower shall not raise any civil or criminal objection against any measure taken by the obligee to discharge its obligations.

C. At the time of the preparation of the letter of payment in this case, Defendant B and his wife assumed the obligation of loans of KRW 30,000,000 to the Korea Saemaul Depository, and Plaintiff’s mother F was the joint and several surety, and Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s wife D was the Defendant B’s guarantor.

F The above F spent KRW 11,187,190 on June 25, 201 and KRW 11,149,750 on June 25, 201, and the above B subrogated for KRW 13,960,80 on July 24, 2011, and thereby, the Defendant B and the above E paid the full amount of loans to Defendant B and the Korea Saemaul Bank.

On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a certificate of content that demands the payment of the principal and interest of the debt based on the instant payment note, and the said certificate was served to the Defendants around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case derived from the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff claims the Defendants to pay the borrowed money and interest on the main basis of the instant payment memorandum.

With respect to this, the Defendants recognized the authenticity of the instant payment note, but did not accept the instant payment note.