“The Plaintiff was the Plaintiff. Thereafter, on March 5, 2019, written and delivered a payment note by C, and the content thereof is that C reimburses the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 40,000,000 and interest KRW 1,200,000 by March 18, 2019. “The Defendant was a witness, and the Defendant signed and sealed as a witness.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for return of KRW 40,00,000 to the defendant upon the application for the instant payment order, the defendant asserts that C as the actual debtor does not have the responsibility for return.

However, according to the above, unless there is any counter-proof, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized as each disposal document, so long as the authenticity of the establishment is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant borrowed KRW 40,00,00 from the plaintiff, and thereafter C merely guaranteed the return of the loan to the plaintiff by means of a payment note, and it is difficult to conclude that C has taken over the defendant's obligation to return the loan to the plaintiff as a discharge. Thus, the defendant's argument is not acceptable.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay 40,000,000 won with the interest rate of 24% per annum from February 19, 2019 to February 28, 2019 (=40,000,000 x 10/365 x 0.24) plus 40,263,000 won, and 40,000,000 won among them, with the interest rate of 24% per annum from February 19, 2019 to February 28, 2019 under the Interest Limitation Act, and to order the Plaintiff to pay damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from March 1, 2019 to the date of full payment. It is so decided as per Disposition.