1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On September 21, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that, without interest, the Plaintiff leased KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on December 31, 201 with the due date set as the payment date on December 31, 201. The Defendant’s failure to pay this amount, thereby making a reimbursement of KRW 3,00,000 as the method of offsetting the Defendant’s retirement benefit claim against the Defendant’s stock company C (hereinafter “C”) on January 6, 2014. The Defendant has the obligation to pay the principal amount of KRW 302,054 [3,00,000] calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as from January 1, 2012 following the due date until January 5, 2014, which is the day before the due date for repayment of the principal, from January 5, 2014.

The defendant asserts that 3,00,000 won received from the plaintiff is not the loan but the defendant's advance payment, which was the employee of C, and since the plaintiff, who was in charge of the representative director of C, was executed in the form of a loan between individuals with the awareness of the partner D at the time when the plaintiff was in dispute of management right, the defendant did not have a duty to pay

2. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the plaintiff signed the defendant's signature on September 21, 201, stating that he/she borrowed KRW 3,00,000 from the plaintiff as a condition of interest free until the repayment date on December 31, 2011, and around that time, the plaintiff transferred the defendant's 3,00,000 won (hereinafter the money in this case) to the defendant. However, although it is acknowledged that the plaintiff added the whole arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the whole arguments, the following circumstances, namely, the statement confirming that he/she did not state interest on the above loan and that there is no interest until the repayment date, is considerably exceptional in the money lending transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant's representative director, while the plaintiff lent the money in this case to the plaintiff, the plaintiff set off his/her claim against the defendant's retirement pay to the representative director and the plaintiff on February 10, 2014.