On the other hand, the defendant asked the plaintiff to lend money to C, and lent money of KRW 300 million to Police Officers during May 2004, and the plaintiff who did not pay money to C, extended KRW 80 million to the defendant on May 14, 2008, and paid the money to C by subrogation.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers):

(1) On May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 80 million into the Defendant’s account. On January 25, 2010, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding reimbursement of KRW 80 million to the Defendant.

(2) D and E loaned money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff borrowed money, but the Defendant did not pay the money.

(3) The Defendant borrowed money from another company on the security of the F’s trademark right due to the lack of financing circumstances around 2008.

B. Meanwhile, it is difficult to believe that the witness G’s testimony that corresponds to the Defendant’s assertion is based on the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the overall purport of the pleading as a whole.

(1) The witness G was aware that the Defendant lent KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff and C, but C borrowed KRW 300 million from the Defendant regardless of the Plaintiff.

(2) A witness G was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff’s secretary as a joint and several surety when receiving a certificate of 300 million won of money borrowed from C around 2006, but H was not the Plaintiff’s secretary, but C’s secretary.

(3) A witness G agreed to pay 300 million won interest on the loan to C in 2004. On May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 80 million won and then received a letter of commitment from C on June 26, 2008. However, the amount of 80 million won after adding interest to the loan.