A. The defendant shall pay KRW 31 million to the plaintiff and KRW 5 million among the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at manufacturing and selling motor vehicle parts, and the Defendant is a person who operates a mechanical manufacturer with the trade name “F” in the name of Defendant B, a wife of the first instance trial.

B. During the period from January 17, 2017 to March 2, 2017, the Defendant, as indicated in the following table, has no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant, who prepared and delivered each of the loan certificates (hereinafter “each of the loan certificates of this case”) to the Plaintiff four times as indicated in the following table, issued the respective loan certificates to the Plaintiff as the other party.

The loan was set forth in the order of priority when referring to the loan under each of the instant loan certificates (hereinafter referred to as “the loan”). The amount on the date of setting up the sequence is KRW 1,100,000 on January 17, 2017 and the maturity date is KRW 5 million on January 24, 2017, and there is no KRW 1,000,000 on February 14, 2017, and there is no KRW 40,500,000 on March 2, 2017.

Plaintiff

From the corporate bank account in the name of B (J) to the corporate bank account (K) account in B, KRW 10 million on January 17, 2017, and KRW 5 million on January 24, 2017, respectively.

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap’s entries in evidence, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant loaned the Plaintiff a total of KRW 31 million, which is KRW 31 million on January 17, 2017, KRW 5 million on January 24, 2017, KRW 100 million on January 24, 2017, KRW 10 million on February 14, 2017, and KRW 31 million on March 2, 2017. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 31 million and delayed damages thereon.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant did not borrow a loan Nos. 1 through 4 from the plaintiff, and the defendant received money as the price for the purchase of machinery pursuant to the agreement concluded with the plaintiff, and only formally prepares and prepares each of the loans of this case at the plaintiff's request for accounting management, which is invalid as it was made according to the false agreement between the above parties.

(ii)..