A. From June 1, 2012 to October 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received a request for the lending of the operating fund of a gas station from Defendant C, and consented thereto, and then remitted KRW 167,500 in total to the account in the name of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) or to the account in the name of Defendant C, the wife of Defendant C, or to the account in the name of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(D) Money transferred to the account under the name of Defendant B was transferred to a considerable portion. Defendant B, on July 18, 2012, transferred KRW 5,000,000,000 to the account under the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 3,000,000 on September 3, 2012, and KRW 30,000 on September 21, 2012, and KRW 6,000,000 on December 27, 2012, KRW 4,00,000 on January 24, 2013; KRW 10,000,000 on January 10, 2013; KRW 20,000,000 on February 20, 2013; and KRW 60,60,60,600,600, Jun. 6, 2003;

B. most of the remitted money to Defendant B was used for the settlement purpose of oil payments for oil companies, including SOil Co., Ltd.

C. On October 5, 2013, Defendant C agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,000,000,000, which had been remaining until that month, among the loans borrowed by Defendant B, KRW 3,000,000 as of the end of each month.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the borrower of the instant loan as Defendant B, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff directly remitted the instant loan to Defendant B’s account at Defendant C’s request; (b) the Plaintiff transferred most of the money transferred to Defendant C’s account in the name of Defendant B to Defendant B; (c) most of the money transferred to Defendant B was used as the operating fund of gas stations, which is the business purpose of Plaintiff B, including the payment of oil price; and (d) Defendant B directly repaid KRW 66,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant B asserted that the borrower of the instant loan was Defendant C in view of the fact that the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 was written in the name of Defendant C, but the said confirmation and loan certificate were delayed.