1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its amount shall be 15% per annum from February 28, 2019 to May 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence) and Gap evidence No. 4 (Detailed Statement of Account Transactions in Agricultural Cooperatives) and all pleadings, the defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the plaintiff on September 16, 2013.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won of the above loan and damages for delay after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case containing the purport of the plaintiff's peremptory notice of performance, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion

A. The defendant, denying the loan of the above money, asserted that the defendant's father C only prepared a loan certificate to the defendant by forcing the plaintiff to prepare a loan certificate under a circumstance related to money such as purchasing the land of the plaintiff's father D's father, etc., but it is not sufficient to accept the above assertion because the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is sufficient to recognize the above 1. and to recognize the defendant's assertion. Thus, the above assertion is not accepted.

B. The Defendant asserted that his father C borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff, and that C was a bad credit holder, and thus, the Defendant lent the name of the borrower. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and C as to the loan for consumption of money, and as long as the Defendant borrowed the above money as provided in the above 1-mentioned paragraph, C actually used the above money.

Even if this is a situation after the defendant's monetary rent.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

C. The defendant asserts to the effect that the above money was paid by the defendant's father C while performing civil engineering works on the land owned by the plaintiff's father D (in Jeju, E). However, since the recognition of the above Paragraph 1 is reversed and there is no counter-proof to recognize the above assertion, the above assertion is not accepted.

The defendant is upon the request of the father of the defendant and the father of the defendant D's father.