1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 51,364,031 as well as KRW 50,00,000 among them, from November 2, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the loans of KRW 50,000,00,000, the loan maturity of April 11, 2020, the interest rate of KRW 7% per annum (payment on April 11, 202), and the delay interest rate of KRW 2.2% per annum in arrears within 30 days in arrears, the interest rate of KRW 2.2% per annum in arrears, the rate of KRW 5.2% per annum in arrears, and the rate of KRW 6.2% per annum in case of exceeding 90 days in arrears (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 50,00,000 in the Defendant’s account loans under the name of the Defendant.

B. From June 14, 2017, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the payment of interest under the instant loan agreement.

C. As of November 1, 2017, the remaining principal and interest of a loan agreement of this case remains at KRW 50,000,000 and interest and delay damages thereon at KRW 1,364,031.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12.2% per annum as to the principal and interest of KRW 51,364,031 under the loan agreement in this case (i.e., principal and interest of KRW 50,000,000 until November 1, 2017) and the principal and interest of KRW 50,000,000 among them within the agreed rate of delay payment from November 2, 2017 to the date of full payment, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. On July 18, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to C in the name of D, and as such, it was difficult to recover the loan. In order to settle non-performing loans, the Plaintiff actually lent to C the loan agreement of this case with the Defendant, who is merely the nominal lender, with the intent not to assume responsibility as the loan obligor, is not a loan obligor.

Therefore, the loan agreement of this case is a false declaration of intent.