(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, and Gap evidence 3-1, 3-2:

(1) The Defendant, together with C, requested the Plaintiff to borrow money to raise funds for the purchase of land.

(2) On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 42 million to the Defendant, and agreed with the Defendant on December 31, 2016, the maturity period between the Defendant and the Defendant was 20% per month, and the agreed interest rate was 23% per month.

(3) C is a joint and several surety for the Defendant.

(4) The Plaintiff is deemed to have received KRW 840,00 for a single-time interest.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid loan amount of KRW 42 million and the agreed interest thereon from October 23, 2015.

(B) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, even if the Defendant entered into the instant monetary loan agreement on behalf of C as the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant’s intent is sufficient to the effect that even if the economic effect under the instant monetary loan agreement belongs to C, it would be deemed that the Defendant would be held liable as the principal obligor for the borrowed loan obligation by reverting the economic effect to C, and thus, the Defendant’s argument in this part cannot be accepted).

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 42,00,000 won with interest rate of 24% per annum from October 23, 2015 to the day of full payment.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.