[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around April 2012, the Plaintiff paid interest of KRW 2.5% per month to the Defendant who operates the bond business; and (b) lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant, and thereafter additionally lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant around August 2012.

After that, the defendant's intention to engage in the bond business for the number of months is rejected by the plaintiff, and instead, the defendant introduced the debtor, and agreed to receive direct interest from the debtor introduced by the plaintiff, and accordingly, the plaintiff had C transfer money from January 2013 to the defendant and the debtor. Since the defendant was aware of last, he paid to the debtor only the remaining money after appropriating his claim to the debtor for his own number of days, or directly used the money received from the plaintiff on the ground of the debtor.

Therefore, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to assume liability for non-performing loans arising in the course of the bond business for the number of months, the defendant prepared and executed a cash loan certificate on December 15, 2013.

In addition, after receiving the above cash loan certificate from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff came to know that it was used by the Defendant on the ground of the virtual seal of D, which was not reflected as non-performing loans at the time of preparation of the above cash loan certificate.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 67,00,000 ( KRW 56,000,000 + KRW 11,00,000 for D bonds).

Dor. The plaintiff's argument is the defendant's recommendation.