1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 290,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 7, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) on April 7, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned interest of KRW 2.90 million to the Defendant at KRW 2,00,000 per annum (per annum) and one year from the time of repayment. The Plaintiff received interest from the Defendant in the account under C’s name, and also received interest by withdrawing money from the Defendant’s account with the Defendant’s check card. Since the Defendant did not pay the above loan and interest, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 2,90,000 and delay damages. (ii) The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D agreed to consult on the operation of the pent and jointly operated the pent (hereinafter “instant pent project”).

The Plaintiff’s 2.9 million won paid to the Defendant on April 7, 2008 to the Defendant as the investment in the pension project of this case. The Plaintiff’s 2.0 million won paid to the Plaintiff as the profit is paid, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the said money is a loan has no merit.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015 (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is recognized that: (a) health class; (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 5; (c) evidence Nos. 1 and 2; (d) evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4; and (e) evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4; and (e) evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 4; and (c) evidence No. 20144, Apr. 7, 2008; and (c) the Plaintiff lent the instant loan agreement

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant extended loans to the plaintiff KRW 290 million and this.