2. The defendant B.

A. The Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “the first payment”) to Defendant B around September 10, 2006. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the said loan and interest in arrears to the Plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, on July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 (hereinafter “the second payment”) to Defendant D, his father’s husband’s wife, and Defendant D is obligated to pay the above loans and interest in arrears to the Plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant B upon Defendant B’s request, and received a certificate of loan from Defendant D prepared by Defendant B around August 1, 2009. If the above certificate of loan was written by Defendant B without Defendant D’s authorization, Defendant B is obligated to pay the above loan and interest for delay to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,00 to Defendant B around September 10, 2006 does not dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, but the Plaintiff did not receive a loan or enter into an agreement on the repayment period, etc. when paying KRW 30,00,000 to Defendant B, namely, when considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff did not seek the refund of the said money or the payment period, etc. for a long time, and the Plaintiff did not seek the payment of the interest thereof, unlike the first payment, in the process of receiving the second payment after about three years, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate under the name of Defendant D from Defendant B, and other relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc., there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,00,000 to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit.

B. The second claim is based on the loan certificate (No. 2) written in Defendant D’s name, but the petition is duly formed.