1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 14.5% per annum from October 1, 2006 to May 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2005, the Defendant was operating a resting restaurant (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) with the trade name of “D” located in “D” located in “D” in the East Sea.

B. On December 6, 2005, the defendant requested E to arrange loans from financial institutions by issuing a seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, proxy certificate, proxy certificate, copy of resident registration certificate, and certified copy of resident registration card.

C. On December 9, 2005, E transferred 38 million won under the name of lease deposit and key money for facilities to G, a lessee of the instant commercial building, by lending money from a financial institution to a third party or from a third party F.

E, on May 2006, prepared a certificate of borrowing (No. 1) under the name of the defendant using the defendant's seal imprint certificate, which was kept in custody, and delivered it to the plaintiff.

The content of the above loan certificate is that "the defendant shall borrow from the plaintiff on May 3, 2006 at interest rate of KRW 0.9% per month, interest rate of KRW 14.5% per annum, and due date of payment on June 20, 2006. It shall be repaid in 40,000 by 1 million per 20,000 won from June 20 to June 20, 2006."

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). (e) The contract based on the foregoing loan certificate is called “instant contract.”

E received KRW 40 million from the plaintiff around that time, and repaid the loan to F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 1, witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion of right of representation 1) since the defendant granted the right of representation to the plaintiff to borrow money from the plaintiff, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the loan and damages for delay under the contract of this case to the plaintiff. 2) However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is not enough to deem that the defendant granted the right of representation to borrow money from the plaintiff to E, and it is different.