1. The Defendant’s KRW 30 million and the Plaintiff’s 15% per annum from May 26, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around April 6, 2015, the Defendant, who was working as the representative of the Gangnam-gu project team of the C Co., Ltd, recommended the Plaintiff, known as a customer, to make an investment by “to obtain high profits if he/she subscribed to an insurance company’s high-income goods, etc. for employees,” and accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the Defendant’s investment and to receive the proceeds therefrom, and deposited KRW 220 million in total from around that time to November 2, 2017.

B. On December 20, 2017, the Defendant drafted a certificate of loan (hereinafter “the instant certificate of loan”) with the purport that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 250 million from the Plaintiff, but repaid the Plaintiff the said borrowed amount and the interest thereon KRW 50 million until December 31, 2018.” (hereinafter “the instant certificate of loan”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a quasi-loan agreement to convert the existing investment contract into a monetary loan agreement by preparing the loan certificate of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 300 million won, including the loan amount of KRW 250 million, the agreed interest rate of KRW 50 million, and the agreed interest rate of KRW 50 million, pursuant to the loan certificate of this case, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum from May 26, 2019 to May 31, 2019, the following day after the delivery date of the application for the payment order of this case, which is the date of the delivery date of the application for the payment order of this case, and damages for delay calculated by 12% per annum from

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s criminal complaint, and that it was not effective. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

We cannot accept the defendant's argument.

B. The defendant is on the loan certificate of this case.