1. Defendant B’s KRW 40,800,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 20, 2017 to November 16, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Common factual relations;

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are friendly, and Defendant C is the mother of Defendant B.

B. around August 201, Defendant B proposed that the Plaintiff would make an investment in the construction machinery business run by the said Defendant, along with the principal, KRW 4% per month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff granted KRW 31,3280,000 to Defendant B over 23 times from September 1, 201 to February 28, 2014.

C. On October 29, 2014, Defendant B issued a loan certificate to the effect that, while settling the Plaintiff and the remaining principal amount as KRW 100 million, Defendant B would pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 100 million invested by the Plaintiff up to July 30, 2015, and that, as interest, Defendant B would pay KRW 100,000 per month from November 30, 2014.

Since then, Defendant B was unable to fully pay the above money by July 30, 2015, and on October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff and the remaining principal were settled at KRW 55,500,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff as of September 19, 2017, and Defendant B prepared a settlement statement to the effect that “it shall be repaid to the Plaintiff, with the maturity of KRW 5,55,00,00 from the Plaintiff as of September 19, 2017, which shall be at least one million, but at least ten,00,000 won in total every five months.”

E. Since then, Defendant B repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 14.7 million over 17 times from November 5, 2015 to October 31, 2016.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 2 through 5, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s preparing a loan certificate at the time of settling accounts over two times to determine the debt amount to be paid by Defendant B to the Plaintiff, while the purpose of the existing loan is to make the loan for consumption, and it has the character as a settlement contract and a quasi-loan for consumption. Thus, Defendant B is limited to KRW 14.7 million already paid to the Plaintiff at the above final settlement amount of KRW 5.5 million, barring any special circumstance.