1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 190,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 22, 2015 to February 23, 2015; and (b) February 24, 2015 for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, on May 20, 2014, remitted KRW 160,000,000 to the Defendant, respectively, (1) KRW 30,000,000 on July 28, 2014.

B. However, on May 20, 2014, the Defendant prepared and rendered to the Plaintiff a documentary loan certificate stating “160,000,000 won for rent, and from May 20, 2014 to November 20, 2014” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the total amount of KRW 190,000,000 (=160,000,000) remitted to the defendant is the loan amounting to KRW 30,000,000, both parties' assertion and claim the return of the above loan to the defendant.

The defendant asserts that the money transferred from the plaintiff is not a loan but a loan, and that it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. On May 20, 2014, when the Defendant transferred KRW 160,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 20, 2014, the fact that the Defendant prepared the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff is as seen earlier.

In light of these facts, the above amount of KRW 160,00,000, which the plaintiff remitted to the defendant shall be deemed as a loan, and further, it shall be deemed as a loan of KRW 30,000,000, which the plaintiff additionally remitted to the defendant after the plaintiff.

(1) The testimony of the witness C alone is insufficient to reverse this judgment).

Therefore, according to the theory of the lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 190,000,000 and damages for delay calculated from January 22, 2015 to February 23, 2015, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, which is the date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, to the plaintiff.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.