1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as well as to the plaintiff on March 2016.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The plaintiff is the friendship of C, which is the defendant.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 31 million from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff in cash and provided the Defendant with KRW 30 million out of the said 23th day of the same month.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed and lent the repayment period of KRW 30 million as of December 23, 2015 at 15 days after the lease date. As such, the Plaintiff sought a loan of KRW 30 million and its delay damages based on a loan for consumption agreement. 2) Even if a loan for consumption is not recognized, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2016, and thus, based on the above agreement, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 30 million and its delay damages.

Even if both a loan agreement for consumption and a loan agreement on January 16, 2016 are not accepted, the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, at least as an employee of the Plaintiff, suffered a loss of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff while working as an employee, and accordingly, sought payment of KRW 30 million and delay damages based on tort liability.

B. The Defendant’s counterargumentd the Defendant merely received a proposal from the Plaintiff on the same defect as the corporate bond business around October 2015, and was provided with the Plaintiff’s benefits and vehicles from the end of November 2015, and the Plaintiff’s corporate bond business was merely a loss incurred by the Defendant’s failure to recover the money lent to D in the process of assisting the Plaintiff’s corporate bond business.

In addition, the defendant has a corporate bond business under the condition that the defendant is not liable even if the loan is not recovered in the course of the corporate bond business. Thus, even if the defendant did not collect the money paid to D, the defendant is not liable to return it to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

(a) judgment on a claim for the return of a loan based on a loan for consumption.