1. 32,400. Based on a monetary loan agreement concluded on July 16, 2014 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not enter into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant on July 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”) and did not borrow KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant. However, the Defendant demanded payment of KRW 32,400,000 of the principal and interest on the obligation under the instant monetary loan agreement through the certification of the content as of December 16, 2014, and thus, the confirmation of existence of the obligation is sought.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant entered into the instant monetary loan agreement with the Defendant, and 30,000,000 won from the Defendant as interest rate of 3% per month, and as of October 16, 2014, the due date for payment was set by October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loan and the damages for delay to the Defendant.

2. First of all, as to whether a monetary loan contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each statement in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, which seems to correspond thereto, cannot be considered as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the contract, and it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement in the evidence Nos. 3, 4-1 through 4, and 7, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

[In full view of the results of fact-finding with respect to the Social Services Korea Co., Ltd. in this Court and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the order to submit each financial transaction information to the NAK200 vehicle (automobile registration number B), the Plaintiff can only be aware that the Plaintiff did not enter into a lease contract for the NAK200 vehicle (automobile registration number B) and did not engage in financial transactions as security on the said vehicle] Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not enter into the monetary loan contract in this case, and there is no obligation against the Defendant under the monetary loan contract in this case.