1. The Defendant’s KRW 165 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 50 million from October 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff, a person engaged in credit business with the trade name of “C, leases KRW 10 million to the Defendant on March 11, 2016, KRW 65 million on March 18, 2016, and KRW 165 million on a total (hereinafter “instant loan”).

According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 165 million won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the agreement was set at the rate of 27.9% per annum and the due date of repayment on August 31, 2016 and lent to the Defendant.

However, although the plaintiff appears to have agreed interest while lending to the defendant, there is no evidence to recognize that the rate of such agreement is 27.9% per annum, the legal interest rate in civil law should be applied.

In addition, it is not clear at the time when the repayment period is due, but in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant appears to have paid interest or delay damages to the plaintiff until September 2016. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the repayment period has arrived before September 2016. Thus, the damages for delay from October 1, 2016 for the loan in this case is recognized.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment as to it

A. The defendant's assertion is merely the introduction of D only to the plaintiff and the receipt and delivery of the instant loan from the plaintiff to D.

In other words, the Plaintiff lent the instant loan to D other than the Defendant.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant, even if the Defendant used the instant loan deposited by the Plaintiff for D, it cannot be deemed as an intention to vest the economic effect under a loan agreement in D and to vest the legal effect thereof in D, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an intention to vest the economic effect of the loan agreement in D.