A. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a monetary lending contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant monetary lending contract”) and delivered KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant.

Money lending and lending contract

1. Amount of loans: 10 million won per day (Won 10,000,000);

2. Period of lending and borrowing: April 2, 2015 to May 1, 2015;

3. Interest: 10% of the amount of lending and borrowing on a monthly basis;

4. Method of payment of interest: It shall be paid concurrently when the principal of a loan is repaid;

5. Methods of repayment of loans: The defendant shall repay the full amount of loans on the day the lending period expires and pay interest to the plaintiff.

The full amount of the lending and lending may be repaid before the expiration of the grace period, and the interest shall be paid on a daily basis.

6. Guarantee of the performance of obligations: All liabilities for the payment of interest and the repayment of bonds shall be borne by the defendant, and when the payment of interest and the default of the repayment of loans, the lease agreement and all musical instruments established in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be transferred to the plaintiff without any condition.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

(b) When a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be recognized with the contents stated therein unless there is any reflective proof.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, within the scope of the agreed interest rate from April 2, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the loan principal of KRW 10,00,000,000, and which is the loan date

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust since the Plaintiff’s actual borrowing of money is the Plaintiff’s pro-Japanese E, and the actual borrowing of money was used by E.

B. However, although the evidence presented by the defendant alone does not contain the entries in the "money lending contract of this case" as the disposal document, only E is the monetary lending contract of this case.