A. The plaintiff (1) was aware of the defendant B through the introduction of the F, a private village, and was asked by the above defendant to lend 200 million won in total of the principal and the profits within three months of the week, while the plaintiff (1) was in the process of investing in the business of building a factory site in Yangsan, which was the fund for the business of building a factory site in Yangsan, and the funds are less than 100 million won.

(2) The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the Ulsan Nam-gu New Zealand and loaned the remainder of KRW 30 million to the above Defendant on September 30, 2011.

(3) On October 1, 201, Defendant B borrowed KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff on October 1, 201, stating that “The Plaintiff shall borrow KRW 100 million and pay KRW 100,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000,000”

(4) At present, the development project of the Yangsan factory site is not carried out due to the failure to obtain the permission of the Yangsan factory site. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, witness F partially testimony, and the purport before oral argument.]

B. (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to return KRW 100,000 and KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won as seen above through the drawing up of the loan certificate of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 31, 2017 to April 3, 2018, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as the Plaintiff seeks.

(2) As to this, the above defendant asserted that the above defendant only acted as a broker and there is no agreement to return KRW 200 million to the defendant D's company to invest in the factory site development project where the defendant D is underway.