1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 23, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 50 million to the Defendant, including KRW 15 million and KRW 35 million on July 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant payment”).

B. Around that time, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) to the Plaintiff that “the Defendant borrowed the instant payment, the period of which shall be one year until July 10, 2015, but may partially repay according to the intermediate circumstances.”

C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1 million on July 30, 2015, and KRW 2 million on September 20, 2015, and KRW 500,000,000, respectively, on November 20, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Where a contractual party prepares in writing a certain content of a contract as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring special circumstances, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized as well. In particular, in a case where a significant impact on the legal relationship between the parties by interpreting differently from the objective meaning of the text, the more strict interpretation of the text should be made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26769 Decided November 11, 2010). B.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff lent the instant payment to the Defendant, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 48 million (i.e., KRW 50 million - KRW 2 million) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 23, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks after the due date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense dispute

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant payment is not a loan but a donation or an investment, and thus, does not have a duty to return.

As seen earlier, the Defendant with respect to the instant payment.