A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the fact that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to the Defendant, the Defendant joining the Defendant, and D with business operation funds, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive installment payments from the end of April to the end of July of the same year from the end of April 2015 to the end of July of the same year (Evidence No. 1). The Plaintiff remitted the loan to the Defendant Intervenor’s account among the borrower under this contract. However, it is recognized that the borrower did not pay the loan KRW 19 million until now.

B. In light of all the circumstances, including the relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the borrower, it is recognized that the Defendant and the borrower jointly borrowed the above loan from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 19 million won and damages for delay after August 1, 2015.

2. The defendant's assertion

A. As to the summary of the argument, the Defendant transferred the above loan to the Defendant’s Intervenor and used it as the funds for the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the borrower is merely the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant is not the borrower, but the Defendant cannot be deemed to be the borrower, contrary to the language and text of the document of disposition (Evidence A 1).

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim.