1. Defendant B’s KRW 17,350,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 12, 2019 to April 29, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C is his father and wife of Defendant B.

B. On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from D Bank, and remitted KRW 25 million to E, Defendant B’s creditor, and remitted KRW 4 million to Defendant C’s F Bank account.

C. On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 20 million from the F Bank and delivered it to Defendant B in cash.

around September 2018, Defendant B prepared to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing (hereinafter “instant primary loan certificate”) with the following content.

Defendant B is entitled to complete the loan of KRW 30,000,000 which received the start-up capital by the date of running the loan, and at the same time the loan certificate is paid in full over seven years with the principal and interest.

(2) The F Bank loans of KRW 20 million shall be repaid in 28,000,000,000 per month, each of which shall be 400,000 won as principal and interest.

(3) The payment of the card shall not be interrupted, and 4.7 million won to single-households shall be repaid by the plaintiff.

Defendant B is entitled to the remainder of KRW 1,33 million after deducting KRW 4,700,000 from KRW 18 million for the card.

E. On November 30, 2018, Defendant B drafted a loan certificate stating “I swear that I will tell 5 million won per day without interest for the number of days during a white day” (hereinafter “the second loan certificate of this case”) to the Plaintiff.

F. Defendant B repaid KRW 9,50,000,000 out of the loan amounting to KRW 5,000,000 based on the instant secondary loan loan certificate.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire argument [the defendant Eul asserted that the plaintiff Eul prepared the first and second loan certificates (Evidence No. 1 and 44) of this case by the plaintiff's intimidation, but the evidence alone submitted by the defendants is insufficient to recognize that each of the above loan certificates was prepared by the plaintiff's intimidation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant Eul's above assertion cannot be accepted]

2. The plaintiff.