A. The Plaintiff, who was destroyed by the owner of C’s vessel, operated the business by building the destroyed goods by the Defendant and the Plaintiff from around 2003 to November 201 and supplying the destroyed goods to the company designated by the Plaintiff.

B. On July 4, 2009, the Defendant, who newly leased a fishery product drying house to Y, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, borrowed KRW 40,000 from the Plaintiff to use for the facility investment cost of the building building site leased by the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for KRW 13,642,750 for the construction cost of the destroyed goods from October 17, 2011 to November 8, 2011, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gaso3948 (hereinafter “Related Cases”), and around May 31, 2013, the said lawsuit was concluded with the confirmation of the settlement recommendation to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 9,00,000 to the Defendant by May 31, 2013.”

On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 9 million won to the Defendant in accordance with the above decision of recommending reconciliation.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 40,000,000 and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.

B. The fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion remitted KRW 10,000,000 to F as designated by the Plaintiff’s wife E on September 13, 2010 is no dispute between the parties.

Although the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,000, separate from the loan 40,000 won, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,136,200 on September 27, 2010, and transferred KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant through sponsoring on October 13, 2010, and again resisted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,006,70 for freezing storage expenses and paid the remainder in cash on October 17, 2010. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is clear that there was a transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.