1. The defendant shall pay 27,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 30% per annum from January 24, 2009 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2009, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a letter of borrowing as follows (hereinafter “the instant letter of borrowing”). A. The Defendant offered to the Plaintiff a letter of borrowing as follows.

The borrower himself/herself, on January 15, 2009, borrowed KRW 27 million in addition to KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on January 15, 2009.

Therefore, it is confirmed that the loan amount is KRW 80,000,000.

Transfer Account Number: a new bank C

B. I shall reimburse on January 23, 2009 the full principal of the above borrowed amount of KRW 80 million.

E. The interest on the above loan shall be the highest interest rate permitted by law.

B. On January 15, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 27,000,000 to D’s account (new bank C) by the Defendant’s wife.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff 3 is as follows.

B. Defendant E’s introduction to borrow KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not lend the said money.

(2) The Plaintiff’s lease deposit was seized by the Defendant and received KRW 50 million. However, the Plaintiff’s lease deposit was seized.

Accordingly, the defendant borrowed KRW 27 million to the plaintiff in order to get the office to be a director, and the plaintiff above KRW 50 million to the plaintiff 1.B.

A loan of KRW 27 million was made.

Therefore, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff with full payment, and instead, the defendant should receive KRW 23 million from the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the court shall, in principle, recognize the existence and content of an expression of intent as stated in the relevant disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement. In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the contents of the text thereof, the motive and circumstance of such agreement, the purpose of the agreement to be achieved by the agreement,