대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 188 million,000,000,000,000,000 excluding the amount of KRW 1.2 million from February 10, 2012 to KRW 1.2 million with interest rate of KRW 36% per annum pursuant to the Interest Limitation Act. Thus, pursuant to the Interest Limitation Act, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20,000,000 for the remainder after deducting the interest calculated at the highest interest rate of KRW 20,000 from the remainder after deducting the interest calculated at the principal interest rate of KRW 28,80,000 from the remainder after deducting the interest calculated at the highest interest rate of KRW 20,000,000 from March 7, 2014.
2. The defendant's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a sub-loan of KRW 18.8 million that C borrowed from the Plaintiff by C.
Since the defendant paid 20 million won to D and repaid all borrowed money, it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim.
B. According to each of the statements stated in Gap 3, Eul 1-2, 6-2, and 8-1, the fact that the defendant paid KRW 20 million to Eul from February 15, 2012 to May 2012, and that the defendant was subject to a decision that the defendant was not suspected of having been convicted of having failed to prove evidence on July 25, 2013 in the case where the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant due to the suspicion of fraud (No. 8196 of the Jinwon District Prosecutors' Office in the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office in 2013; hereinafter "the case of complaint").
However, in full view of each of the above evidence, Gap's statement 5, Eul's testimony of witness of the first instance court, the result of the commission of document delivery to the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of this court, and the whole purport of the arguments, Eul is merely deemed to have participated in the demand for transport or payment of D's vehicle, and the defendant provided the plaintiff with D's vehicle as security through E, which is the plaintiff's agent.