1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 10, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 8, 201, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant KRW 29 million from the account of himself/herself and his/her wife C, KRW 3 million from his/her own account on December 26, 2012, and KRW 11 million from his/her own account on December 27, 2012, and KRW 43 million from his/her own account on December 27, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”). This is the money loaned to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request.

Nevertheless, since the defendant did not pay the above money, it is demanded to pay it.

B. Defendant (1) did not borrow the instant loan from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff’s mother D through the Plaintiff’s account.

Therefore, since the party to the monetary loan contract of this case is not a plaintiff, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) On September 22, 2011, the Defendant: (a) remitted all the said money to each D’s account, including KRW 10 million on February 21, 2013; (b) KRW 4 million on February 28, 2013; and (c) KRW 5.5 million on February 28, 2013; and (b) KRW 1.5 million on the interest accrued therefrom (hereinafter “each of the instant money”).

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account whether the Plaintiff is a party to the instant monetary loan contract, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, and the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by witnesses D, i.e., ① A has lent and returned money from 2001 to the Defendant. When lending money to the Defendant, it appears that the transfer was made mainly by using the passbook under one’s name when lending money to the Defendant. If another person makes a monetary transaction with the Defendant by using the passbook under one’s name, it appears that the remitter was distinct from his/her own transaction by entering another’s name in the remitter’s name (Evidence No. 6-2 and 3), ② The instant loan was remitted from the account in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife (Evidence No. 1 and 2). ③ The Defendant’s loan of this case.