The defendant asserts that the party who borrowed money from the plaintiff is the husband C.

However, the circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are as follows: (a) the Defendant delivered the Plaintiff with its account number, name, and contact number at the time of transfer; (b) the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant did not prepare a disposal document, such as a loan certificate, in relation to the said transaction; (c) it can be deemed as based on mutual understanding that a party can be specified only on the account transaction that was remitted under the name of the Defendant; (d) at the time of lending KRW 50 million to such C without any security; and (iv) in light of the empirical rule, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the debt even around 2012, but there is no particular proof of objection raised by the Defendant against the obligor, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is in the status of the borrower who borrowed money from the Plaintiff in cooperation with C at least.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

In addition, although the defendant asserts that C is offset against the claim that C should receive from the plaintiff, it does not automatically set off against the defendant's claim against C with the claim that is not the defendant, and there is no evidence that C knows the existence and scope of the claim against the plaintiff, so this part of the claim cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the Defendant’s interest calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 24, 2009 to June 24, 2019, the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 12% per annum under the Act on Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.