A. The Plaintiff purchased multiple insurance policies at the Defendant’s recommendation, which is the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor, and made monetary transactions with the Defendant. In the purport of settling the accounts around December 16, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 65,000,000 to the Plaintiff by March 2017, but the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 65,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the payment agreement on December 16, 2015”).

(2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of the agreed amount of KRW 50,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the agreed amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s loan certificate required as the basis for the payment agreement dated December 16, 2015 is merely a form of preparation for the refund of insurance premium from an insurance company through civil petition treatment. Rather, when considering the settlement of financial transactions between the original Defendant, the Defendant is entitled to return KRW 15,00,00 from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust. 2. The Defendant asserted that the loan certificate (Evidence A1) between the original Defendant and the original Defendant was duly established, and insofar as the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized, the court is clear that it denies the contents of the agreement and the remainder of the agreed amount of KRW 15,00,000,000 from 200,000,0000.

As to this, the defendant is merely the form of the above loan certificate, but according to the above loan certificate, the defendant is from the plaintiff 51.