The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

A. The Defendant’s notary public C prepared on June 21, 2018 against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, with the reasons for the judgment of the first instance (the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3rd 5 pages are as follows: (a) the “fund collection company” means “fund collection”.

Under the 4th page, the Defendant “” means “A person who is either the Defendant or the Defendant Q and R”.

Under the 5th page, the “1,285,621,141 won” is the “1,152,00,000 won (the sum total of the payments in the instant payment statement less the amount paid 4,621,141 won)” of 3 conduct.

Under the 5th day, the 4th day below 8th day, 2th day below, and 6th day below the 10th day “24% per annum” all are 2% per month.

Under the 10th day, the parts from 3 to 11th day shall be as follows:

“A) First of all, 20 million won out of the 1st half of the instant payment record Nos. 1 and 220 million won, and 2,3,5,7, and 9 each of the 222,000,000 won out of the instant payment record Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 through 9 respectively.

In accordance with the agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff entered into a false service contract with Q and R, and that the Plaintiff paid this part of the money under the pretext of value added tax pursuant to the service contract. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not exchange this part of the money under the pretext of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan pursuant to the agreement

In addition, the Defendant reported the value added tax by including the remainder of the money received from the Plaintiff as the Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the payment statement of this case from the Plaintiff as the total sales tax amount, and paid this part of the money as the value added tax. The Defendant merely lent the money to the Plaintiff by the agreement of this case, and the Defendant merely lent the money to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff. Thus, the obligation to pay the value added tax was the obligation of the Defendant to pay the said value added tax from the original date.

It is difficult to see this part of the money as stipulated in Article 4 of the Interest Limitation Act.