1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 40,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000 from March 1, 2016, and KRW 10,000,00.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The actual borrower of the loan alleged by the Plaintiff is not the Defendant but C or D.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is brought against a person without standing as a party.

B. In a lawsuit for the performance of the market, the plaintiff's assertion that the person claiming the performance is qualified as the plaintiff, and the person alleged as the performance obligor from the plaintiff is qualified as the defendant, and the plaintiff's assertion itself does not require that the plaintiff is the actual performance obligor or the defendant is the actual performance obligor, and it is not necessary that the plaintiff is the performance obligor or the defendant is the actual performance obligor, but it is only a reason to determine whether the performance claim or the performance obligation is actually a performance obligor, and it

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the safety cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s mother was transferred from the deposit account in the name of E to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “loan 40 million won”) as follows.

(1) On July 22, 2015, the Defendant prepared and delivered the following loan certificates to the Plaintiff on July 24, 2015: (i) KRW 10,00,000; (ii) KRW 30,000,000; and (iii) the Defendant prepared and delivered the following loan certificates to the Plaintiff:

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan certificate”). The borrower borrowed KRW 00 million from A on July 24, 2015.

Interest shall be paid in advance as interest.

3) On August 7, 2015, KRW 10,00 was remitted from the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “loan 10 million”)

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned: (a) the Defendant lent 50 million won in total to the Defendant at 3% per month interest; and (b) the loan of 40 million won until February 28, 2016.