1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 17,000,000 to the Defendant’s account known to C.

B. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant promised to borrow and repay KRW 17,00,000 regularly and by October 20, 2015. The Defendant would pay damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from the day following the due date to the due date for repayment with respect to the unpaid amount if the repayment was not completed by the due date. The Defendant confirmed that the borrowed amount was remitted to the borrower’s bank deposit account on November 13, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and issued it to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 1) and the Plaintiff lent KRW 17,00,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 17,00,000 and delay damages therefrom. 2) Preliminaryly, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 17,00,000 by October 20, 2015, and thus, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 17,00,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant merely transferred KRW 17,00,000 deposited in the Defendant’s account under the name of D upon C’s request from C, and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. 2) The instant loan certificate merely prepared by the Plaintiff to use the loan certificate for the purpose of suppressing C to repay the loan amount to C, and is not prepared by the Plaintiff as the intention to pay the amount stated in the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff. This is invalid because it was made by the false conspiracy mark.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary argument

A. In cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes. Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 200 July 26, 2012.