A. On February 2014, the Defendant stated that “Around February 2014, the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the principal of the investment and interest at 14-24% per annum after the maturity of one year, where (a)C established by the Defendant is in the process of making an investment by securing the business rights of (b) C) C, and there is no concern about the principal office due to the security value guaranteed.”

B. Accordingly, on February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff trusted the Defendant’s horse, and transferred KRW 30,000,000 to a bank account under the name of (ju)C designated by the Defendant, and KRW 70,000,000 to a bank account under the name of the Defendant around March 13, 2014, and KRW 20,00,000 to a bank account under the name of the Defendant around June 11, 2014.

C. On May 26, 2014, the Defendant drafted each monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff, each stipulated at the interest rate of 24% per annum on July 20, 2014, and each stipulated at 24% per annum on May 20, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant monetary loan agreement”) with the loan amounting to 70,000,000 won on June 12, 2014, and on June 13, 2014 with the interest rate of 24% per annum on August 13, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant monetary loan agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant received KRW 120,000,000 from the plaintiff, and agreed that he would return the principal of the investment and the agreed interest to the plaintiff directly.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 120,000,000 and the agreed party and delay damages pursuant to the above agreement.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff invested KRW 120,00,000 to D via the Defendant, and among them, that KRW 90,000,00 was to prepare a monetary loan contract, not an investment contract, and only formally prepared a monetary loan contract, and does not lend the money to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, each of the loans for consumption of money in this case was concluded with false representation of agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.