A. On October 16, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant KRW 100 million”).

B. From November 19, 2012 to January 19, 2015, the Defendant transferred KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff’s new cooperation account in the name of the Plaintiff between November 14 and January 19, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant remitted the instant KRW 100 million received from the Plaintiff to D, and D again remitted this to E.

The Defendant collected a loan certificate of KRW 100 million from E, and prepared a notarial deed stating that “the Plaintiff shall lend KRW 100 million to E and pay interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum to E” on behalf of both parties to the Plaintiff and E.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, witness E's testimony, and purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant and remitted the instant KRW 100 million to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and damages for delay pursuant to a monetary loan agreement. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that received KRW 100 million and delivered the instant monetary loan agreement to E and received KRW 2 million as interest per month from E and did not have concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff.

The loan contract for consumption of KRW 100 million was concluded between the Plaintiff and E.

B. In order to establish a judgment contract, the parties’ agreement is required to be reached, and such agreement is not necessary with respect to all matters forming the content of the contract in question, and there is an agreement on the standards, methods, etc. which are either specific or specific in their essential matters or important matters, and at least the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001).