On September 15, 2010, Defendant C made a monetary transaction, such as deposit and withdrawal in the name of Defendant C, with a passbook and card in the name of one bank, foreign exchange bank, and national bank account in the name of Defendant C, with the business registration of “E” restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

From around that time, the Plaintiff had Defendant B borrow 35,425,00 won from the Plaintiff at the monthly interest rate of 1% on December 29, 2015 and offer to Defendant B a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the content that Defendant B would repay to the Plaintiff on June 29, 2016, while having Defendant B borrow 35,425,000 won as funds, etc. necessary for the operation of the restaurant of this case from time to time, and had Defendant B write down the loan certificate in the computer and present it to the Defendant B, Defendant B as Defendant C’s direct seal on the loan column, and affixed the seal in C’s name.

(hereinafter “The instant loan”). The Plaintiff received KRW 9,376,00 from Defendant B, and thereafter did not receive the remainder of KRW 26,049,00 (= KRW 35,425,000 - KRW 9,376,00) from Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute. According to the above facts of determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Eul as to the plaintiff's claim as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the defendant Eul is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from December 9, 2016 to the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the defendant Eul, as the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff Eul, among the loans of this case, and as the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff Eul.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C was that the Plaintiff lent the instant loan to the Defendants and received the instant loan certificate, and the Defendant C is the Defendant.