1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the witness C’s testimony, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff set the interest rate of 24% per annum to the Defendant, and lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

[Defendant C] The witness at the trial stated to the effect that “I will prepare a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) on behalf of the Defendant and I would like to bring I to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant at the request of the Defendant that I would like to use the writing.” On the other hand, Article 603 of the Civil Act provides that “I would sufficiently recognize that I would have prepared the loan certificate (Evidence A 1) on behalf of the Defendant.” On the other hand, if I would have no agreement on the time of return, I would have to give a peremptory notice to the lender with a reasonable period set.” At least, it is reasonable to view that the time when I would have arrived at the time of the repayment of the above loan obligation at the time of the closing of the first trial proceedings, which was due to the delivery by the Plaintiff of the complaint at least ten million won to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from August 17, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the Plaintiff was paid interest on the borrowed amount of KRW 10 million and the day when the Plaintiff was paid interest thereon.

2. The Defendant asserts that the person who borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on July 17, 2012 is not the Defendant but C.

In light of the fact that the witness C testified that “the plaintiff believed that he was the debtor and ordered the defendant to pay KRW 10 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won,” the witness C alone is insufficient to reverse the fact that the person who borrowed KRW 10,000,000,000 is the defendant, and there is no other evidence to reverse it.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.