The defendant shall pay 199,746,785 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from April 17, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant extended a loan of KRW 200,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case") from C Bank on June 20, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party company"), and the non-party bank exempted the non-party company from the above collateral guarantee obligation of the non-party company on January 20, 200 at the request of the plaintiff who is a major shareholder of the non-party company, and instead, exempted the non-party bank from the above collateral guarantee obligation of the non-party company on its behalf to secure the defendant's above collateral guarantee obligation, the non-party bank established a collateral pledge against the plaintiff's deposit claim against the non-party bank on March 31, 2020, the non-party bank may set off the above collateral pledge of this case against the plaintiff's deposit claim.

The defendant alleged that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because he did not use the above money by remitting the loan of this case to the non-party company.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, the defendant was found to have remitted KRW 199,925,00 and KRW 99,965,00 among them immediately after receiving the loan of this case to the non-party company, but considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 8, the defendant was supplied with goods from the non-party company from June 1, 2005 to January 2020, and the defendant paid KRW 350,000,000 to the non-party company from March 25, 2010 and additionally received KRW 250,000 to October 20, 2010.

The fact that the non-party company entered into an agreement with the defendant that most of the loans in this case were remitted from the defendant and appropriated it for the repayment of the above goods payment obligation to the non-party company. Accordingly, according to this, the defendant remitted most of the loans in this case to the non-party company.