1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 7, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant prepared and issued a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on April 11, 2006 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) to the Plaintiff on April 11, 2006.”

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million based on the loan certificate of this case and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 7, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant.

2. The defendant's assertion is true that the defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case and gave it to the plaintiff, but the above loan amounting to KRW 50 million was used as business fund operated by the network as the business fund operated by the entertainment room, and the plaintiff was also aware of this, so that the above 50 million won is not the defendant but the actual borrower of the loan of this case.

The loan certificate of this case contains a statement that the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant’s name and seal exists at the bottom of the loan certificate of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem the borrower of this case as the Defendant. The witness E’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize the actual borrower of the loan of this case as the network D (this court testified to the effect that E, who operated the business of the network and entertainment room, was present as a witness in this court and testified to the effect that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall not know about the money borrowing relation with the Plaintiff and the Defendant,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.