1. The Defendant’s KRW 260,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 23, 2015 to February 18, 2016, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. On January 23, 2015, C drafted a monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, on January 23, 2015, that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 2.60 million to the Defendant at an interest rate of 3% per month and due date of payment on March 22, 2015, and that C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff (Evidence A No. 2; hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

B. On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 260 million to the Defendant’s name account.

【Reason for Recognition】 Description No. 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of this court’s order to submit financial transaction information to our bank, Inc. (hereinafter “Korea bank”), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 260,000 to the Defendant via the Defendant’s agent C. Even if there is no right of representation against C at the time of the above lending, the Defendant was responsible for the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act or ratified C’s unauthorized Representation. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 260,000.6 million. (2) The conjunctive claim C is the Defendant’s employee who was involved in the Defendant’s work as the Defendant’s agent in relation to the Defendant’s work, and borrowed KRW 260,000 from the Plaintiff, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the amount of the loan. Accordingly, the Defendant, the employer, is liable for the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not grant C the right of representation with respect to a monetary loan. Even if there exists the right of representation with respect to domestic affairs C, since C is excessively high at the rate of 3% per month of the agreed interest rate at the time of borrowing KRW 2.60 million from the Plaintiff, a monetary loan agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 23, 2015 is null and void in violation of Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act. 2) The Defendant is not the employer of C.

3...