1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 29, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is one of the joint representative directors (C, D) of the defendant company's joint representative director (C, D).

B. On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 60,000,000 to D’s account upon D’s request to borrow and request the Company’s Operating Fund.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”). C.

D As of December 16, 2014, the Defendant Company borrowed KRW 60,000,000 from the Plaintiff and made a loan certificate to pay it by June 16, 2015, and delivered it to the Plaintiff with the name and the official seal of the Defendant Company affixed thereon.

(hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”). D.

Since then, from January 16, 2015 to January 16, 2015

7. By the 15th to the 16th day of each month, interest of KRW 300,000 per month was paid to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60,000,000 from the representative director D of the Defendant Company to the Defendant Company by means of remitting the borrowed amount of KRW 60,000 to D’s account upon request. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 60,000,000 and the delay damages therefor.

B. Defendant 1 is only one of the joint representative directors of the Defendant Company, and thus, is not entitled to do the act of borrowing this case on behalf of the Defendant Company. The Plaintiff, the wife of D, knew or could have known such circumstances, and thus, the loan agreement of this case is null and void.

② In addition, D has committed an illegal act, such as embezzlement of Defendant Company’s funds, and the loan of this case also abused power of representation for the purpose of pursuing its own interest by personally taking advantage of the loan of this case, and the Plaintiff knew or could have known such circumstances, and thus, D’s loan of this case is null and void.

③ The Plaintiff’s spouse and the Plaintiff’s words deposited KRW 30,00,000 in the Plaintiff’s account on the date of the instant lending, and D was saved in the Defendant Company.