1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2015, the amount of KRW 200 million was transferred from the D Bank account of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to the E Bank account in the name of the Defendant.

B. On September 30, 2015, C transferred the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the above KRW 200 million transfer, the Defendant was registered as the representative director of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 1 and 2, the witness G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant lent the above KRW 200 million on the ground that the Defendant lacks the purchase price for H 450 square meters and its ground buildings in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si. Therefore, the obligor of the instant loan is the Defendant.

(2) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the above KRW 200 million was borrowed for the purchase, etc. of the HH real estate owned by the Froom, and the party to the monetary loan contract with C is F, and the Defendant only allowed the use of his account in the process.

B. (1) Determination (1) There is a dispute between the original defendant as to who the party to the instant monetary loan agreement (debtor) is the party, and generally, it constitutes an interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

In a case where there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties concerned, the parties’ intention should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act,

(2) According to the witness G’s testimony on January 25, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018). (2) According to the witness G, G, the representative director of C, was asked to lend the purchase price of the said H real estate purchased in the name of the Defendant from I, who is the F, the actual manager of F, on September 1, 2015, and the said H real estate purchase price is KRW 200,000,000.