A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant lent a total of KRW 150 million from October 28, 2004 to December 10, 2004, a total of KRW 150 million to the due date for payment from October 31, 2008, and sought payment of the said money and damages for delay.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's above KRW 150 million is a loan that the plaintiff paid for the purchase of machinery for business preparation in accordance with the business partnership agreement with C (the defendant's partner), not a loan that the defendant borrowed (the defendant introduced two persons to carry out the above business partnership).

B. 1) In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the defendant issued to the plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2004 a promissory note with the face value of KRW 150 million, the due date of payment, and the due date of December 31, 2008, and the notary public on the same day recognized compulsory execution as a law firm ordinary deed No. 967 on the same day (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case").

(2) The Plaintiff entrusted the preparation to C on October 28, 2004, paid KRW 75 million to C on December 3, 2004, and remitted KRW 75 million to the account of the Gyeongsung on December 3, 2004 and December 10, 2004, and ③ the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff is a corporation D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

ii)the automatic lighting engineer’s “the instant machine” to be used by it (hereinafter referred to as “the instant machine”).

A) The sales price of the non-party company was used as the sales price. The de facto operator of the non-party company: (4) the Plaintiff and the non-party company did not prepare an investment contract or a partnership agreement; and (5) the Plaintiff did not receive profit dividends from C or the non-party company (on April 2007, the non-party company agreed to operate the non-party company as a partnership with E and the non-party company as a partner, and then, it appears that the non-party company prepared a partnership agreement, specifying

(5).