A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent business funds to the defendant several times at the request of C in a de facto marital relationship with the defendant, and the defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that C's total debt will be repaid KRW 87,000,000 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to the plaintiff (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), so the defendant should pay the loan of this case and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

Judgment

1) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and subparagraph 1, the loan certificate prepared by the Defendant on March 24, 2014 by stating the Plaintiff as “one million won in total, the repayment period: December 30, 2014, and the borrower: The borrower” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

A) The fact that C issued the instant loan certificate was issued, and C requested the Defendant to issue a cash custody certificate for KRW 20,000,000,000, which was previously lent by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed that C’s existing debt will be repaid in total, KRW 87,00,000,000. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided a loan certificate of this case. According to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as stated in the instant loan certificate of this case, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, having the nature of the instant loan agreement and the loan agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 87,00,000 based on the instant agreement and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 28, 2016 to the date following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks, pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from July 28, 2016 to the date of complete payment. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant loan was fully repaid, and therefore, according to the items of evidence Nos. 2 and 3.