A. C (hereinafter “C”) and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 6, 2016 with respect to one-half of each of the instant land out of the land E-5,321 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant and D have served as an executive officer of C.

C. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to lend money with respect to the instant land development project, and prepared and delivered the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificates”) to the Plaintiff. around that time, the Defendant received total KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff.

(1) Amount borrowed: Interest at KRW 2,50,000 (2): No date of loan. (3) The date of repayment: The date of withdrawal for loan. (4) The purpose of loan: The date of withdrawal for loan: The E-permission cost, design cost, restoration cost, etc. [founded grounds] is not dispute, A, 1, 4 through 6, Eul's each statement in subparagraph 1, and a summary of the argument of the parties concerned, a summary of the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and acquired KRW 80 million against the Defendant from F. (2) The Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff KRW 250 million including the above KRW 180 million and interest, and prepared and issued the instant loan certificate.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 180 million, out of KRW 250 million as stated in the instant loan certificate, and damages for delay thereof. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) Since the amount actually borrowed from the Plaintiff is KRW 100 million, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the said amount in excess of the said amount to the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff intended to repay the money set forth in the instant loan certificate by executing the loan to the development project of the instant land. Accordingly, the Defendant stated the repayment date in the said loan certificate as “E loan withdrawal date,” and the said loan was not made. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim did not have arrived at the due date.

3. The case.