1. The Defendant’s KRW 25 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 23, 2016 to September 20, 2017, and the following.

1. On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 25 million to the Defendant.

When the defendant opened a marina passbook to the plaintiff, the defendant would not cause damage to the plaintiff by paying the withdrawal amount of the marina passbook to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, on September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff opened and delivered to the Defendant a deposit account that is able to withdraw up to KRW 20 million without balance in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant account”). The Defendant did not pay 20,100,000 won from the instant account until October 16, 2016, as the Plaintiff did not pay the said money.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25 million, the indemnity amount of KRW 20.1 million, the sum of KRW 45.1 million.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant does not dispute the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 25 million from the Plaintiff.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 25 million and damages for delay.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff opened the instant account in his own name; the fact that the Defendant withdrawn money from the instant account does not conflict between the parties; and according to the statement of evidence A1-2, the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 20,100,000 of the principal and interest of the money withdrawn from the instant account is recognized.

However, barring special circumstances, the Defendant bears the obligation to repay money without balance from the account opened in the name of the Plaintiff to a financial institution with the intent of the financial institution to enter into a deposit transaction contract with the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest of the money withdrawn from the instant account to the financial institution.

It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s obligation was repaid on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s obligation was repaid on behalf of the Defendant.

(No evidence exists that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have concluded a monetary loan agreement or a performance acceptance agreement).