On the other hand, the Defendant transferred KRW 49,360,000 from the Defendant’s name account to the Plaintiff’s spouse C’s name account.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of both parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 210,00,000 to the Defendant, claiming that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 49,360,000 among them, and that the remainder was not paid. The Plaintiff sought payment of the outstanding loan against the Defendant.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s loan claim is merely an individual transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s former representative, and thus, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. (1) In full view of the above recognized facts and the evidence submitted by both parties, it is reasonable to view that the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, is not D but a loan to the Defendant.

As examined in the above facts, the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant’s name account, and even the money that the Plaintiff received was remitted from the Defendant’s name account. However, if an individual transaction was conducted between the Plaintiff and D, it seems that the Defendant did not use the Defendant’s name account.

D, the Defendant’s former representative, was appointed as the Defendant’s internal director on August 9, 2019, and completed registration.

At the time when E, a representative of the defendant, was transferred to the defendant, he was unable to hear the claims sought by the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case from D, the former representative.

It should be viewed as a matter of need to be settled between E and D.

According to the entry of the evidence No. 2, D, etc. is not specified.