[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The instant money is the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant upon the request of Nonparty D, who was a director of the Defendant.

(2) The money of this case constitutes the price for goods received from C who was a customer of the Defendant’s supply of goods.

Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to return the loan to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following facts or circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 8, and evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 8 as a whole in the testimony of witness D, the defendant is obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff, since the money of this case constitutes the amount that the plaintiff lent to the defendant.

① At the request of the above witness, D, who was a director of the Defendant, testified to the effect that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff’s individual without relation to C as business funds for the Defendant, and that it was known to the Defendant’s accounting officer.

② On July 15, 2016, the Defendant’s accounting officer deleted the part of “E91,00,000,000 won” on the sales account books (Evidence No. 7) regarding the details received from C according to the witness D’s aforementioned reference.

③ If the Plaintiff intended to pay the instant money to the Defendant as the price for goods against the Defendant, not a loan, the Plaintiff appears to have taken measures to transfer the said money to the Defendant, once it transferred it to the account of C, instead of directly transferring it to the Defendant.

4. The defendant and C: