1. The defendant shall pay 45,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from September 9, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is operating a restaurant with the trade name “D” in Gangwon-gun C.

On May 23, 2014, the cash car certificate (Evidence A2) in the name of the Defendant entered as “the borrower, 45 million won, and 23 May 2014, 2014,” and the following is written as “the borrower, 45 million won, and the date of borrowing.” The second installment interest of the month is paid on the 22th day of each month, and the lease contract period of the D cafeteria (from March 31, 2014 to March 30, 2016) expires, and the principal is repaid simultaneously with the expiration of the lease contract period of the D cafeteria.” The Defendant’s seal imprint is stamped on the name of the Defendant.

B. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 45 million to the Defendant’s deposit account.

C. The Defendant remitted KRW 1350,000 to the Plaintiff’s deposit account on May 20, 2014, and remitted KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff’s deposit account on June 24, 2014, which was after deposit of KRW 45,00,000,000,000 on July 26, 2014, KRW 90,000,000 on August 29, 2014, and KRW 50,000 on September 27, 2014, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 9 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent 45 million won to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff who promised to marry donated the above money to the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 45 million to the Defendant by setting the period of repayment as 2% per month interest and March 30, 2016.

(1) The existence of a cash borrowed seal stamp (No. 2) affixed by the defendant's seal imprint and the fact of the plaintiff's remittance may be recognized as the defendant's loan.

The defendant's argument about the preparation process of cash car stamps is that the plaintiff has affixed his seal imprint on the grounds that it is not known that the plaintiff refused to affix his/her seal on the cash car stamps.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant recognized the seal imprint portion and that the plaintiff arbitrarily affixed the defendant's seal imprint without the defendant's consent.