1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 16, 201 to December 11, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and interest, etc. to the plaintiff since he lent KRW 200 million to the defendant, the defendant asserts that the defendant only sought a loan from C, and he did not receive the above money from the plaintiff.

2. The identity of the party to the judgment is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document, regardless of the internal intent of the parties, even though it is not attached to the phrase used in the document. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be acknowledged as

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012, the Defendant, upon setting the maturity date of KRW 200,000,000 from the Plaintiff on February 14, 2011 as the maturity date of payment of KRW 200,000,00 from the Plaintiff on February 15, 201, signed and sealed the loan’s loan’s debt, and C signed and sealed the loan’s loan’s debt, and the Plaintiff transferred 200,000,000 won to the Defendant’s new bank established on February 14, 201.

[The Defendant initially asserted that “A” No. 1’s repayment date was “B” No. 6 (the same as the tea, but the Plaintiff voluntarily stated on February 15, 201 and did not agree on the initial repayment date. However, according to the evidence No. 5.