Whether to recognize the fact of leasing the issue of this case (Dispute No. 1-1) interest agreement (Dispute No. 1-2), the defendant's repayment amount (Dispute No. 2-1), etc. (Dispute No. 2-2), the 1-1 (Case No. 2-2), which is the issue of whether the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the loan was made, requested the plaintiff to lend KRW 100 million for the purchase of the automobile, and the plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million for the purchase of the automobile as security on April 3, 199, and then withdrawn KRW 30 million for the same day, and KRW 5 million for the withdrawal as a check on April 7, 199, and the remaining KRW 15 million for the payment of the loan to the defendant.

Since then, the Defendant requested to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant for the opening of the cafeteria “C” restaurant, and the Plaintiff received an additional loan of KRW 100 million on September 4, 2001, and delivered it to the Defendant as a check.

The plaintiff's assertion did not lend KRW 200 million to the defendant, and only invested in E (one person F), the business president of the selling company (D) for imported used cars of the defendant.

Since then, the defendant appealed to the plaintiff for difficult circumstances that the plaintiff was unable to recover the above investment amount and sent monthly money to the plaintiff in an intentional manner, and not paid as interest for the loan amount.

Judgment

Although there is no document, such as a disposal document, which directly verifies the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Defendant, such as the loan certificate, but considering the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant around April 7, 199 and KRW 100 million around September 4, 2001, by taking into account the entries in Gap’s 1 through 7, Eul’s 4 through 8 (including serial numbers) and the witness G’s testimony as a whole.

§ 2.3.5