1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,175,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from November 10, 2017 to February 19, 2019; and (b) from the following day.

1. Basic facts

A. (i) The Plaintiff, one of the children of the Network C (Death on April 8, 2016) holds a loan certificate of KRW 2 million as of June 23, 2010, issued by the Defendant to the Deceased; (ii) the loan certificate of KRW 2 million as of August 6, 2010; (iii) the loan certificate of KRW 17 million as of October 7, 2010; and (iv) the loan certificate of KRW 20 million as of August 8, 2012, and one million as of which the date of preparation cannot be known.

Sheshe transferred KRW 1.7 million to the Defendant on March 5, 2014.

B. From September 1990 to June 2014, the Defendant operated a general restaurant in the name of “E” in the vicinity of the steel station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D from September 1990.

The loan certificate (No. 1-3 and 4) contains “H building I” or “E”, and the Membook (No. 4) written by the Defendant contains the following: “Floms, jus, air, air, water, stones, stones, materials, rice, two parts, rice, straws, raw materials, fresh water, beverage water, sale, and rupture.”

C. (1) Money transaction between the Deceased and the Defendant remains only the details remitted by the Defendant from April 4, 2005 to September 21, 2010.

she transferred KRW 285,00,000 on January 20, 2016, and KRW 240,000 on February 12, 2016, to the account of Nonparty F’s father’s father Nonparty F.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul Nos. 3, 4, 6, and witness G

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim shall claim the remainder of KRW 53,700,000, the sum of the borrowed amount and the remitted amount as stated in the above loan certificate, excluding KRW 525,000,000, from the total sum of the borrowed amount as stated in the above loan certificate.

B. The Defendant’s defense (i.e., the Defendant did not borrow the money stated in the loan certificate, and the loan certificate cannot be trusted.

B. The borrowing of the principal and interest of the Defendant and the Deceased was performed every day for 100 days as the so-called number of days transaction.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that the Defendant shall borrow the restaurant operating funds even if the period of three years has expired, and the Defendant shall borrow the restaurant operating funds, and the Deceased shall have been actually engaged in the credit business and the period of five years has expired as it constitutes a commercial obligation.

C. The Plaintiff’s re-defense Defendant 285,000 won on January 20, 2016, and 2016.