1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual amount of KRW 5.4% from December 12, 2015 to August 10, 2016.

Basic Facts

On October 12, 2015, the loan certificate was prepared with the content that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on January 11, 2016, the agreed rate of KRW 5.4% per annum, and the interest payment period on the 12th day of each month, and the Plaintiff’s signature and seal affixed to the loan certificate and the Defendant’s corporate seal affixed thereon.

On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100,000,00 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s corporate account. The Plaintiff obtained approval from the representative director by stating that KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff was deposited in the Defendant Company’s funds daily account.

KRW 100,000,000, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant Company, was used for the Defendant Company’s business, such as the Defendant’s online advertising expenses.

The defendant paid only the interest on two months of payment to the plaintiff, and did not pay interest after December 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 21-1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition that the obligation to pay a loan on the ground of claim arises, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above loan KRW 100,000,000 and interest and delay damages.

The defendant's assertion and its judgment on the above assertion by the defendant are not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's children who worked as a general director of the defendant company's management. However, although Eul's statement Nos. 20-1 through 5 is sufficient to reverse the contents of the above evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document, and the fact that KRW 100,000,000 has been remitted from the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as C, not the plaintiff's creditor of the loan of this case.

The Defendant is not a loan, but an investment amount of KRW 100,000,000. At the time of this case, C in collusion with D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, at the time of this case, and offered capital increase to the Defendant to seize the Defendant Company in collusion