대여금
1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 43,00,000 and KRW 21,500,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,50,000 from January 1, 2015.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion from January 4, 2010, the Plaintiff provided a loan to the Defendant via Nonparty C, who is an employee of the lending company run by the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed that the Defendant lent the loan to a third party and repaid the loan to the Plaintiff. On December 31, 2014, the Defendant recognized that the principal of the loan to be repaid to the Plaintiff was KRW 73 million, and that the interest was KRW 321.6 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from January 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
2. The following circumstances revealed in full view of Gap's judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap 3 and 4, Eul's witness's witness's witness's testimony, namely, the plaintiff filed a claim for a loan against Eul in Seoul Southern District Court 2015Da217496, and C in the above case, the amount paid by the plaintiff to the lending company is investment, and the lending company is not liable for the non-performing loans, and the plaintiff paid 20 million won to the plaintiff around April 2015, and there were 73 million won following deposit to the plaintiff around April 2015. The plaintiff alleged that the principal except the dividend amount and non-performing loans is only 39,255,759 won. Unlike Gap 2 (written confirmation), the plaintiff's statement was not written with the defendant's signature or seal, the principal amount is 73 million won, and C was not written with the plaintiff's loan amount of 2.2.3 million won, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the amount paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the defendant.
However, in full view of the entries in Gap 2 and witness C’s testimony, the Defendant’s “Defendant” as the company operation fund to the Plaintiff on January 3, 2015.