A. C is a person who substantially operates the Plaintiff and is the spouse D’s representative director.

B. C received a request from the Defendant to lend money on April 29, 2016, and remitted KRW 75 million from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s account.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, entry of evidence No. 1, testimony of witness C, purport of whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion C lent KRW 75 million to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to pay interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of lease.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 29, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the loan amounting to KRW 75 million.

3. Determination

A. The defendant's attorney who made a judgment on the leased principal appears at the court on the first date for pleading, and stated that "the fact that he borrowed (75 million won from the plaintiff) is recognized, and the fact of the interest agreement is denied, but the amount partially repaid is deducted and repaid." The defendant's attorney who made a judgment on the leased principal is deemed to have established a confession on April 29, 2016 as to the fact that the plaintiff loaned KRW 75 million to the defendant.

A confession in court may be revoked by means of means of attesting the fact that the confession has been made by the party who made the confession in violation of the truth and the fact that the confession has been made due to an error, unless the other party gives consent thereto.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da47389, Jul. 11, 2019). The Defendant asserts that the confession is against the truth and is revoked due to mistake, inasmuch as the Defendant merely received investment money from C, not borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and all of the debt relationships with C were arranged.

However, the evidence alone presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the confession was in violation of the truth, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Rather, it is true.