A. The plaintiff's assertion made on March 11, 2009 lent KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. On March 11, 2009, the Plaintiff operating D Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s arguments, introduced F from Defendant B the chairman of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of E Urban Environment Rearrangement Project Association. When the said Promotion Committee establishes an association and implements an urban environment improvement project, it lent KRW 30,00,000 to F in the name of D for the purpose of taking charge of the removal work of D Co., Ltd., and it was issued and delivered a loan certificate by the Defendant, the applicant as evidence for the said monetary transaction.

As such, the lender who lent KRW 30,000 to the above 30,000 is not the plaintiff, and the borrower is F, so the defendant is not a party to a monetary loan agreement, and thus, is not liable to repay the above loan to the plaintiff.

In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff borrowed the above KRW 30,00,000 for the business of Defendant B, even though Defendant B was the lender and Defendant B, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the above KRW 30,000 for the business of Defendant C, the statute of limitations had already expired on March 12, 2014, which was prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

2. Determination:

(a) Where it is deemed that the establishment of a monetary loan contract is authentic, the contents of the contract shall be recognized by the existence and contents of the declaration of intention, and such declaration shall not be rejected without any special reasons; and

(Supreme Court Decision 82Meu413 delivered on December 14, 1982). According to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 30 million from his bank account on March 11, 2009, and Defendant B regularly borrowed KRW 30 million with the creditor “D President” on the same day.