1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from June 9, 2015 to January 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the operation funds of the medical corporation D (hereinafter “the medical corporation of this case”) are necessary, and the Defendant and C request the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 70 million from the medical corporation. As such, on September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to lend the amount of KRW 70 million to the Defendant and C to the Defendant and C, and the Plaintiff did not pay the amount of KRW 70 million. As such, the Defendant and C are liable to pay each Plaintiff KRW 70 million.

B. Although the Defendant alleged that he had signed the certificate of borrowing the Plaintiff’s submission, the Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was an employee who was employed by the medical corporation of the instant medical corporation, and was paid money from C, which is the operator of the instant medical corporation. The Plaintiff is aware that, while operating E, the Plaintiff provided food materials to C in return for the supply of food materials to the cafeteria or the entrusted operation of the cafeteria. In the event that the Plaintiff should complete the payment of the Plaintiff’s subsidies after the establishment of the legal corporation, the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff’s subsidies to the legal entity by converting the obligor into the legal entity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. In the interpretation of a disposition document, the determination shall be based on the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there are special circumstances, and it shall be objectively interpreted that the parties had expressed their intent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da45744 delivered on February 12, 199, etc.). According to the purport of the health care unit, Gap evidence No. 1-1 through 3 as to the instant case, according to the purport of the whole entries and arguments, the defendant signed a letter of loan with the plaintiff on September 2, 2014 that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the plaintiff under joint signature with C, and the plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to C’s account. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff lent KRW 70 million to the defendant and C.