A. The Plaintiff paid each of the amounts indicated in the “loan Amount” column to the Defendant on each date indicated below.

(hereinafter referred to as "the sum of KRW 45 million" b.

The Defendant drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a monetary loan agreement (Evidence A No. 1-5) stating that “The Defendant borrowed the amount corresponding to the column, due date, interest rate, and interest rate for delay as indicated in the column for the pertinent item” on the date of the lending from the Plaintiff.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant money was the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant, and the Defendant promoted the Defendant’s business of delivering monitors (such as attaching the instant money to the C Group, which is a motor vehicle company in Vietnam, to view royalties, etc. at the back of the motor vehicle manufactured by the C Group). However, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant money was not the money that the Plaintiff invested in the said business and the Defendant lent to the Defendant.

B. On the other hand, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized to be genuine, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein. As seen earlier, as long as the defendant prepared and delivered a monetary loan contract to the plaintiff to borrow the money of this case, the amount of this case must be recognized as a loan to the plaintiff, and the evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the amount of this case as a loan to the plaintiff, and there is no other counter-proof, contrary to the contents of the above contract.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff and its total amount on October 27, 2016.