1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 30, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On February 2009, the Defendant was the site manager of Kimpo-do D Apartment Village D Apartment Construction and Unclaimed Construction (hereinafter “each of the instant construction”) who was executed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff is the representative director of C.

B. On September 15, 2010, the Defendant prepared and provided to the Plaintiff a cash custody certificate of KRW 30,000,000 and interest KRW 1% per month with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s creditor, and received transfer from the Plaintiff on September 17, 2010 (hereinafter “instant money”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In regard to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant money is a loan, the Defendant asserted that the instant money is only the construction cost that the Defendant received from C for the execution of wages, expenses, etc. related to the construction as the field director as an employee of C, and that the Defendant did not borrow the instant money from the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the conclusion of the judgment, unless there is any clear and acceptable proof that the authenticity of a disposition document is established, the court shall, in principle, recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable proof that the content of the statement is denied. In a case where there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret it in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005; 2006Da15816, Sept. 20, 2007). In the instant case, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence No. 4, which is recognized as being genuine, is acknowledged as being genuine, in light of the health class, evidence No. 2, 3, and 4 (including each number).