대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 1, 2014 to the day of full payment.
1. When the Plaintiff and the Defendant invested KRW 50 million, respectively, in order to establish C, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff around July 23, 2009 can be acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, either the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute with each other, or the entire purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, and 2 and 3. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at a rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 1, 2014 following the delivery of payment order to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The defendant's assertion that although the defendant prepared a loan certificate with respect to KRW 50 million for investment and received the above money from the plaintiff in the name of the defendant, the above money was not used individually by the defendant, but used for the company's operating fund, and agreed to pay principal and interest while operating the company well, the plaintiff received office deposit of KRW 18 million and KRW 5 million for 2.5 million for 3 months as salary, and received KRW 7.5 million for 2.5 million for 2.5 million for 2.5 months as salary, and the above debt was settled after the closure of the company with money in the name of the company, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay principal and interest while operating the company well, and even if they, they operated a business for the establishment and operation of the corporation and liquidated the relationship.
Even if this is a legal act separate from the above loan debt, and there is no additional argument and proof to acknowledge the repayment of the above loan, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.