1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 17, 2016 to August 30, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence No. 3 of the judgment as to the loan claim as of November 26, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff Company lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on November 26, 2015 can be acknowledged. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff Company the above loan amount of KRW 20 million, and thus, the Plaintiff Company’s claim for this part is rejected.

2. Determination on the claim for loans made on May 6, 2016

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff Company: (a) engaged in the wholesale business of communications equipment and parts such as telecommunications equipment wholesale and retail, etc.; (b) in the event that employees employed in the Plaintiff Company intend to establish a new mobile store, they lent premium and deposit, etc. to the said employees at an annual interest rate of 1% on the condition that they handle the Plaintiff’s products; (c) in order to secure the loan, the Plaintiff Company: (d) from May 2015 to April 2016, the lessee of the real estate lease agreement and the transferee of the premium contract were each Plaintiff Company; (e) the Defendant intended to take over the mobile store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C (hereinafter “instant store”).

Accordingly, on May 6, 2016, the Defendant concluded a premium contract (hereinafter “the premium contract of this case”) stating that “the transferee B, the Plaintiff Company, the total premium of KRW 30 million (the balance of KRW 20 million and KRW 10 million) may be terminated without penalty if the principal contract with the building owner is not possible.”

3) On May 6, 2016, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff Company remitted the down payment of KRW 20 million under the premium contract of this case to B’s account. (4) On May 2016, the Plaintiff Company intended to enter into a lease agreement with the owner of the instant store, and it demanded that D deposit and monthly rent be deposited to the Plaintiff Company into the account in the name of another person.