1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a monetary consumption lending contract with the Defendant as of July 19, 2018 with a loan amount of KRW 150 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 24 million per annum, and due date of payment as of July 19, 2018, and lent the amount equivalent to the above loan amount to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant monetary consumption lending contract”). Even though the Defendant did not directly conclude the instant monetary consumption lending contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff concluded the instant monetary consumption lending contract with the Defendant’s mother C, who represented the Defendant, with the right of representation of C.

Since there is a justifiable reason to believe that the monetary consumption lending contract of this case constitutes an expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act, as well as an ex post facto ratification of the monetary consumption lending contract of this case, the monetary consumption lending contract of this case is effective for the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 142 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 8 million, which was partially repaid out of the above borrowed amount, and the interest and delayed damages.

2. Determination

A. Reviewing whether the Defendant directly borrowed the instant remittance amount, the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, and the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Industrial Bank of Korea of this Court on April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff is recognized to have remitted the amount of KRW 140 million to the head of the Tong (Industrial Bank of KoreaD) under the name of the Defendant on April 19, 2018 (hereinafter “the amount of the instant remittance”). However, the evidence No. 1, No. 5-1, and No. 5-2, No. 5-2, of the evidence No. 5, cannot be considered as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the establishment of each authenticity, and according to the witness’s testimony, the seal No. 5-1, No. 5-2, affixed to the Defendant’s name, was used by Nonparty C for business, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above seal is the seals of the Defendant.

Witness

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, E, C, and F’s testimony, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s East E is the instant case.