A. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant on May 30, 2013 and at 18% interest per annum. On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million on February 8, 2013, and KRW 100 million to the Defendant.

(B) The Defendant’s above debt (hereinafter “instant loan loan obligation”)

Of the amount loaned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, KRW 50 million was a money that D, a substantial operator of the Plaintiff Company, raised from friendly C. However, C demanded the Defendant to pay the money to the Defendant who did not pay the money after the due date. The Defendant, who was aware of such circumstances, remitted KRW 100 million to C with the repayment of the instant borrowed money on January 7, 2014.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's payment of KRW 100 million to C is not valid repayment of the loan of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan of KRW 100 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that C is a legitimate right holder of repayment or expression receipt holder, and even if it is not so, as the plaintiff renders the above repayment ex post facto, it is valid for C to pay its repayment.

B. Even if some of the money loaned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was raised from C, this is merely an internal relationship between the Plaintiff and C, and thus, the obligee is the Plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has the authority to receive the repayment of the loan of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and according to the statement in Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 4-1, the defendant is able to repay the debt to Eul while remitting money to Eul.