1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 28, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, on September 1, 2014, remitted to the Defendant the basic fact amounting to KRW 10 million on September 1, 2014, KRW 10 million on October 1 of the same year, and KRW 40 million on November 5 of the same year, does not conflict between the parties.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) requested the Plaintiff to lend money to the Plaintiff with the expenses of restoring earth and sand gathering, etc. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant and lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion and C, etc. established D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the development of tin acid, and the Defendant actually operated Nonparty Company.

The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with a non-party company and paid KRW 300 million to the non-party company as a contract deposit. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to C, the representative director of the non-party company, but did not pay KRW 250 million remaining.

The defendant requested a loan in the name of the operating expenses of the non-party company and used 40 million won as the operating expenses of the non-party company that was remitted from the plaintiff.

On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the contract deposit of KRW 200 million. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the actual representative of the Nonparty Company, agreed to convert the said KRW 40 million that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant and KRW 10 million that the Plaintiff lent to E into the contract deposit of the said sales contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff loaned KRW 40 million to the non-party company, but agreed to convert the above loan KRW 40 million into the contract deposit of the above sales contract. Thus, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether a borrower of KRW 40 million who remitted and lent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff is the Defendant or a non-party company, and whether the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 40 million has been replaced by the contract bond of sales contract claimed by the Defendant. Therefore, this issue is examined.

(1) First, the loan 4.