C transferred KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s account on March 12, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant via C. 2) The Defendant did not know the Plaintiff and received the operating fund from C.

The plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to C, not to the defendant.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 4 and the overall purport of pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the defendant via C. (A) On April 5, 2016, C entered the vice president in charge of the defendant as the vice president and retired on August 31, 2019.

The representative director D requested C to borrow the funds that can be used for 20 million won with interest for 3 months.

C loaned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff reduces KRW 20 million.

The Plaintiff remitted money to C’s account in the sense that C is a witness, and C remitted the money to the Defendant’s account.

In light of the above circumstances, the plaintiff, the defendant, and C were aware that they lent money to the defendant, and the defendant was well aware that the money received was the money borrowed from the plaintiff.

B) The Defendant used all remitted KRW 200 million. As the Plaintiff did not receive money from the Defendant, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s office on January 24, 2019 and February 22, 2019 to determine when and how to repay the money lent to D. D. Accordingly, the Defendant responded to the purport that D will repay the money when it comes to the circumstances of the company.