2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. C (hereinafter “C”) is a corporation established on January 26, 2005 for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of chemical products, petroleum products, etc.

The defendant was appointed as the director of C on April 19, 2005, and on December 21, 2005, he was appointed as the representative director of C.

B. On December 2, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to an enterprise bank account under the name of the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 29 million from July 10, 2006 to February 7, 2007, from E, etc. one bank account under the name of the Plaintiff as listed below.

On July 10, 2006, 100 E 5,000,000 E on August 22, 2006, 2003 F 5,000,000 on September 25, 2006, G 5,000,000 on September 25, 2006, G 5,000,000 on October 21, 2006, and 3,000,000,00 on May 29, 2006, F 3,000,000,00 on November 29, 200, 200, F 3,00,000,000, F 3,000,00 on February 7, 2007, 2007, with no dispute over each of subparagraph 1, 2,00 evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff may receive interest of KRW 5 million per month if he lends KRW 100 million to the defendant who operates Eul from H, on December 2, 2005, after receiving a proposal that the plaintiff may receive interest of KRW 100 million per month, and that on December 2, 2005, the plaintiff provided a loan to the defendant on December 2, 2006. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above borrowed amount to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant argues that although it was registered as the representative director of C, it was excessive to the nominal representative director and that I in a de facto marital relationship with the defendant was actually operating C while managing the corporate bank account in the name of the defendant, it did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Since a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity, it is natural that the parties have to agree on the above point.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 11. 10