2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant money to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request to use only two to three weeks around August 2013, and the Defendant did not pay that amount up to now.

B. The Defendant asserted that C had a promissory note gold claim against C, and C borrowed bonds through the Plaintiff’s actual operator D with construction machinery owned by C as security.

D At the request of C, 73 million won, out of the money borrowed from construction machinery as collateral, was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account, and C’s payment of promissory notes was not directly borrowed from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff directly lent the construction machinery owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff Company D and delivered the construction machinery owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, rather than directly lending it to the Defendant, in light of the Plaintiff’s actual operator D and E’s respective statements, witness D, E’s testimony, part of witness C’s testimony and the entire argument.

1) D around May 2013, 2013, G limited liability companies located in the Mineyang-si Corporation (hereinafter “G”).

2) The Defendant testified to the effect that “D was requested to lend KRW 150 million from H,” and that “G employees E would also pay KRW 150 million at the G office on August 6, 2013, because he/she would have borrowed KRW 150 million.”

3 In addition to a monetary loan, there is a reason to view that the Plaintiff had a transactional relationship to remit 73 million won to the Defendant.