대여금
1. Defendant C is 6% per annum from May 9, 2020 to March 18, 2021 to KRW 19,221,313 to Plaintiff C Co., Ltd.
1. Determination as to the claim filed by Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”)
A. On November 13, 2009, the plaintiff A and the attached Form attached thereto, which judged the cause of the claim.
1. The fact that a loan agreement is made and the same day has been paid KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant D, and the plaintiff A on February 28, 2011 and attached Form C with Defendant C;
2. The fact that a loan agreement is prepared and the defendant C paid the total amount of KRW 70,00,000 to the defendant C on March 2, 2011, and KRW 25,000,000 on June 2, 2011, and KRW 70,000,000 on September 2, 2011, may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the following items: there is no dispute between the parties; and the evidence No. 2-1 through 4, No. 3-1, and No. 2.
According to this, barring any other circumstances, the Defendants are obligated to return each of the above amounts to Plaintiff A as the borrowed money pursuant to each of the loan agreements with Plaintiff A.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion (1), the Defendants received the above corresponding funds from the Plaintiff A as incentives or piece rates, and the Defendants stated that Defendant C and Defendant D, the spouse of Defendant C, borrowed the corresponding funds from the Plaintiff.
1.2. Each loan agreement asserts that it is merely a mere fact that each loan agreement is formally created for the convenience of company's financing execution, and therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that each of the above amounts was paid as incentives or piece rates as argued by the Defendants, notwithstanding the language and text stipulated in the above loan agreement, even though the each of the above loan agreements with them as stated in the evidence No. 1 through No. 5 is invalid because it constitutes a false representation, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that each of the above amounts was paid as incentives or piece rates as alleged by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted (as stated in the comprehensive development technology joint project agreement (No. 1 evidence No. 1).