1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 10, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and on September 22, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 80,000,000 from the Plaintiff on December 31, 2016 according to the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the Plaintiff, and on September 30, 2016, borrowed KRW 30,000,000 in accordance with the evidence No. 4 of the money borrowed on September 31, 2016.

According to the above facts, as of December 31, 2016, the maturity date of each of the above loans as of the closure date of the pleadings in the instant case, as long as it has already passed, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 100,000,000, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff, from January 10, 2018 to the day of full payment.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant is the non-party A and B, and the defendant is merely the lending of the borrower's name at the time of the above lending. The plaintiff was aware of all these facts at the time of the above lending, and the defendant prepared each monetary lending document formally without the intention to have the defendant bear the debt of the lending, but the defendant's monetary lending according to each of the above monetary lending certificates is invalid as a false agreement.

However, only with the statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 submitted by the defendant, each of the above monetary loans by the defendant under each of the monetary loans in this case is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's act of borrowing money is invalid as a false agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant with no intention to bear the actual obligation, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the defendant'

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.