A. From May 13, 2015 to April 5, 2017, for KRW 26,950,000.

The plaintiff is a friendly relationship with C, and the defendant is a person who jointly established C, D and E and operated a business, such as management consulting, around January 2013.

On January 24, 2014, on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement (i.e., the evidence No. 1; hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff wishes to lend KRW 30 million to the Defendant on July 24, 2014, setting the due date as 6% per annum of interest.

The Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 30 million to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, KRW 10 million on January 22, 2014, KRW 10 million on January 23, 2014, KRW 30 million on January 24, 2014, and KRW 10 million on January 24, 2014.

The Defendant received a request from the Plaintiff for repayment of the instant loan, and paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the judgment as to the existence of a claim as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7, and the cause of claim as a whole of the pleadings was prepared between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lease contract of this case was duly concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Even if the Defendant did not grant the above power of representation, C had the basic power of representation at the time of formulating the instant lending contract as a partnership relationship with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff believed that C had the authority to conclude the instant lending contract on behalf of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for expressive representation as to the instant lending contract under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, the defendant ratified the act of unauthorized Representation C such as making partial repayment to the plaintiff and requesting a grace period.

Therefore, the defendant's 27,219,50 won = 26,950,000 won as at February 25, 2015 to the plaintiff in this case.