1. The Defendant’s KRW 171,50,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 6, 2015 to January 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s agricultural financial account.

B. As above, the Defendant received KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff, and transferred KRW 121.5 million to C’s financial account on the same day, ② KRW 100 million, ③ KRW 93.5 million, in three installments.

C. On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff received KRW 12 million from the financial account in the name of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was transferred to the financial account in the name of “D” operated by the Plaintiff, ① KRW 4.5 million on Feb. 4, 198, ② KRW 12 million on Mar. 1, 198.

E. Meanwhile, the foregoing C was indicted for an act of fund-raising and fraud, etc., and was finalized on May 22, 2014 by sentenceing to imprisonment with prison labor of five years to the Changwon District Court 2014No108, which became final and conclusive as it is.

F. Thereafter, around September 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against the Defendant regarding the claim for loans of KRW 200 million against the Defendant as a preserved right, and filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate against Ulsan-gu E apartment 107 Dong 1105, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan District Court 2014, Sept. 17, 2014, and completed provisional seizure registration of the said apartment around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned the instant money to the Defendant’s financial account by designating the maturity period as the end of September 15, 2010 and remitting it to the Defendant’s financial account (hereinafter “instant money”). As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 188 million and the damages for delay.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the amount of this case is an investment bond that the plaintiff paid to the above C as a share investment bond, and the defendant merely delivered the amount to the above C, and there was no fact that the plaintiff borrowed the amount from the plaintiff.

3. Determination

(a) The whole pleadings are made with respect to the aforementioned evidence and the witness C’s testimony.