A. On September 2005, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant’s mother C to lend KRW 50,000,000.

B. On September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff received cash tea certificate (hereinafter “instant cash tea certificate”) from the Defendant stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff,” and then remitted KRW 50,000,000 to the account in the name of D upon C’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant as stated in the cash loan certificate of this case. 2) The defendant acknowledged the fact that the defendant prepared the cash loan of this case. However, the defendant merely lent the name to C in the form of form, and it is well known that the situation is well known to the plaintiff, so the defendant does not have a duty to return KRW 50,000 to the plaintiff.

B. 1) who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract, and the interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party has given to the expression of intent. In the event that a party prepares in writing the content of a contract between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the party gives to the expression of intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the content of the document regardless of the party’s internal intent, and in this case, unless there are special circumstances, the existence of the expression of intent and the contents thereof shall be acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010).