1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 56,00,000 as well as KRW 20,000 among them, from November 30, 2007 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20,000 to the Defendant.

B. On January 23, 2008, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2007 from the Plaintiff on a monthly interest of KRW 1,50,000 on November 30, 2008 on a condition that the principal and the annual interest shall be paid in lump sum on November 30, 2008, and issued it to the Plaintiff.”

C. The Plaintiff remitted 3,00,000 won to the Defendant on September 26, 2008, 8,000,000 won on November 3, 2008, and 25,000,000 won on July 15, 2009, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including evidence with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion was given a total of KRW 56,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 56,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion did not borrow money from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff concluded an investment agreement with the defendant and remitted money to investments.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances as seen in paragraph (1) above, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including additional evidence number 1), which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, ① remitted 53,00,000 won to the defendant as seen in paragraph (1) above, ② the defendant’s loan certificate was prepared for the portions of KRW 20,000 among them; ③ the remainder of KRW 33,00,000 as well as each remittance amount of KRW 33,00,000, the plaintiff’s remittance was stated as “B lending” while remitting the money; ④ the plaintiff’s wife sent the money to the defendant on August 10, 205, August 19, 205, and December 28, 2015; ⑤ the defendant’s delivery of letters demanding repayment of KRW 56,00,000 to the defendant; ⑤ the defendant’s loan was not made against each other; and ⑤ it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was not made a loan to the defendant.

Then, the defendant.