2. The appeal cost arises between the Plaintiff, Defendant C and D.

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 18 million to Defendant B on December 17, 2012, while the Defendant asserts that the said money was leased to Nonparty E, and that this claim was extinguished by entering into a contract under which Defendant B sells the real estate on March 8, 2013 as indicated in the separate sheet and the attached sheet to Nonparty E on March 8, 2013, by offsetting the claim for down payment out of the purchase price.

B. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11 (including the number of branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the testimony and pleading of the first instance trial witness E through E on December 17, 2012, the plaintiff lent KRW 18 million to the defendant Eul as interest rate of 3% per month.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 18,00,000 won with interest rate of 30% per annum from December 18, 2012 to the date of full payment.

C. As seen earlier, Defendant B asserted that Defendant B was not the Plaintiff but the non-party to the loan contract for consumption of KRW 18 million. However, according to Defendant B’s argument, Defendant B’s assertion that “I borrowed KRW 18 million from Nonparty E on December 17, 2012, and Nonparty E again borrowed KRW 2 million and used a loan certificate (Evidence 5) and borrowed KRW 2 million on the same day, and on December 18, 2012, Nonparty E borrowed KRW 18 million at Nonparty E’s request (Evidence 6).” However, if Nonparty E was the lender, Nonparty E would have borrowed KRW 2 million and borrowed KRW 16 million to Defendant B, and would have received KRW 18 million, and would have received KRW 18 million and disposed of the loan separately. However, it would have been easily concluded that Defendant B would have received KRW 2 million from the loan.