1. The loan between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the loan certificate dated February 11, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 45,000.

1. The facts following the facts are acknowledged as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1 to 8; and (c) evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14; and (c) evidence Nos. 1 to 14; and

A. On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff established D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and assumed office as its representative director.

B. On July 28, 2013, D entered into a contract with Korea Social Services Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Exposure”) on the lease of D motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed D’s lease obligations against halog.

C. The Defendant holds a loan certificate, power of attorney, vehicle transaction approval certificate (the Plaintiff’s resident registration number is also available), vehicle transfer consent letter (the Plaintiff’s resident registration number and February 11, 2014) without stating the Plaintiff’s name and the seal impression affixed to D’s corporate seal impression, and the Defendant occupies the instant vehicle (hereinafter “instant document”).

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not borrow 45 million won from the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff provided the automobile of this case as security and granted the right to borrow 45 million won to E.

According to each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant held the documents of this case and the lease-related documents for the motor vehicle of this case, and transferred KRW 36 million to F on April 14, 2014, but the above evidence alone was recognized, and the defendant lent KRW 45 million to the plaintiff.

The fact that the Plaintiff delegated the loan authority to E is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff delegated the loan authority, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the witness C’s testimony, G from H on February 11, 2014.