The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff-friendly C borrowed money from the Defendant and lent it to the Plaintiff while she was operating restaurant from the middle of December 1999 to the Defendant by borrowing money from the Defendant.

Around May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered C, the Defendant, and C, and C, “A guarantor C with respect to the lender of the above amount” at the bottom of the above loan certificate, stating that “A shall directly repay the money borrowed from the Defendant to the Defendant,” and “A shall delegate the money to the Defendant from January 20, 208 to the Defendant.” (hereinafter the instant loan certificate), and C, at the bottom of the above loan certificate, stated “A guarantor C with respect to the borrower of the above amount.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred money directly to the Defendant from that day to September 26, 2012, including remitting KRW 500,000 to the Defendant on the same day, and repaid the Defendant’s debt under the loan certificate.

On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant and received KRW 8,850,000.

On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a maturity of KRW 158,90,000 at face value, and a maturity of KRW 158,90,000 with respect to the obligation to pay KRW 8,850,00, which was borrowed as above as above, and prepared and executed the notarial deed of this case to accept compulsory execution with respect to the said promissory note.

On September 24, 2012, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction under the Seoul Western District Court D, which owned by the Plaintiff on September 24, 2012 and received a compulsory auction order on September 25, 2012.

On the other hand, C’s agreement on the interest of the loan to the Defendant is null and void beyond the limited interest rate prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and C has a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the interest that was paid in excess to the Defendant, and on January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff on January 24, 201, out of C’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant