1. The defendant's payment order for the loan case against the plaintiff was based on Busan District Court Branch 2019j95.

Facts of recognition

The defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's "the plaintiff" is ordered to pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 16.7 million and the amount of 15% per annum from January 23, 2019 to the date of full payment (the Busan District Court 2019j95 payment order (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"), and the fact that the payment order in this case became final and conclusive on February 9, 2019 is no dispute between the parties.

The parties' assertion and the key issue asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 16.7 million to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff is arguing that the Defendant lent the said money to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff's intermediary.

Therefore, the issue of this case is who is the other party who lends the 16.7 million won to the defendant, i.e., who is the debtor.

(1) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the other party who lent KRW 16.7 million to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, not the “C”, in full view of the fact that there is no dispute over the base date of the damages for delay or the rate of damages for delay. In full view of the respective entries in Gap 3, 4, and Eul 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings:

On January 2, 2018, the Defendant remitted all of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff’s account, and KRW 6.7 million on March 16, 2018.

In addition, the interest on the said money was periodically transferred to the Defendant’s account through the Plaintiff’s identity account or via another person.

The defendant has discussed the amount of direct loan and the method of loan between the plaintiff and the plaintiff who was aware of through female students and transferred the money as above, and there was no doubt about the above circumstances as well as the difference between C and C, and there was no intention to indirectly discuss the above.

The plaintiff argued to the effect that the defendant was aware with C, and that there was a direct monetary transaction between the defendant and C, but only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 and 7 are stated.