1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On November 25, 199, the Plaintiff loaned 45 million won to the Defendant as security the land owned by the Plaintiff, and then lent 10 million won among them to the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to the interest rate of KRW 100,000 per month and the due date until December 12, 2005.

The Defendant lent the above money borrowed from the Plaintiff to C, which caused C to pay the interest that the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the payment was interrupted after C paid interest to the Plaintiff for about two years.

After that, the plaintiff urged the defendant to pay several times, but the defendant did not pay the above principal of the loan and interest after January 21, 2003.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan principal KRW 10 million and interest or delay damages from January 21, 2003.

B. The defendant introduced C only upon the request of the defendant C, and did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff directly lent C money.

2. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 8 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on Nov. 25, 1999, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the content-certified mail stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay interest or delay damages on the leased principal of KRW 10 million to the Defendant on Aug. 20, 2013, the Plaintiff created a mortgage on the land of KRW 169 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, and obtained a loan of KRW 45 million at the south Branch of Pacific Agricultural Cooperative; the amount of KRW 100,000 to KRW 8 million from December 2, 2000 to January 21, 2003 was remitted to the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the leased principal to the Defendant on Aug. 20, 2013.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff's wife paid interest to the plaintiff's husband as interest on the above loan, it is clear that the plaintiff lent it to the defendant.

A.