A. On January 25, 2011, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion determined and lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant at a monthly interest of 3%.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b) The instant loan

The gist of the defendant's argument is that the monthly amount that the defendant paid to the plaintiff after February 28, 201 is not paid as interest payment for the loan of this case, but is limited to the amount that the plaintiff paid for the defendant's restaurant operation Do and the certificate of loan (Evidence A) submitted by the plaintiff as evidence for the loan of this case by the plaintiff is made and sealed voluntarily by the plaintiff, and therefore, it cannot be the evidence of the loan of this case. Thus, the plaintiff did not grant the loan of this case to the defendant.

Judgment

There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the entire purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and arguments, the plaintiff obtained insurance loans of KRW 3046,533 from school life around January 25, 201, and withdrawn KRW 5 million in cash upon receiving KRW 2 million from C, and the defendant granted the plaintiff the money as follows from August 2, 201 to May 31, 201. Examining the details of the remitted money, the defendant can find out the facts that the plaintiff remitted the money to the defendant from February 16, 2009 to KRW 250,000,000,000,000 won per month from February 16, 2009, and the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant as shown in the table below, and then the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant (However, from April 2, 2012, it can be recognized that the plaintiff remitted the money to the defendant as alleged in the above facts.

The delivery date of the sequence 250,000 issued on August 2, 2012, 201; and on August 30, 2011, 250,000 on June 30, 201, 201, August 250, 201, 30,000 on August 20, 201, 30,000 on August 40, 200, 300 on September 30, 201, 250,000 on August 31, 2014, 200 on August 31, 201, 2004