1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as a branch entry company, was the owner of the vehicle operated by leaving the cargo vehicle into the Plaintiff.

B. On November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 37,900,000 to the Defendant, who decided to work as the Plaintiff’s land owner, a total of KRW 62,158,830 on the purchase cost of the vehicle number plate for business use, KRW 22,90,000 on December 9, 2010, KRW 22,585,050 on freight mutual aid premium, KRW 1,585,050 on freight, and KRW 673,780 on the transfer registration cost of the vehicle number plate for business use.

On January 25, 201, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant.

C. The defendant later paid a certain amount to the plaintiff from the monthly transportation fee.

On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff, while paying the principal and interest of the loan stated in the port, agreed to return the remaining amount of the existing loan to the Plaintiff on November 26, 2013, determined as KRW 61,00,000 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and sold KRW 12,00,000,000, and the sales proceeds of the Tractor as well as KRW 5,000,00,000, in total, to the Plaintiff as repayment for the existing loan.

On the other hand, the Defendant, with respect to KRW 5,00,000 remaining on the same day, prepared an annual interest rate of 11%, annual interest rate of 24%, due date of repayment on November 25, 2015, and delivered to the Plaintiff an application for loan and an agreement on loan borrowed from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(hereinafter “instant loan”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan amounting to KRW 5,000,000 and interest and delay damages thereon, unless there are special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he was exempted from the debt of the loan of this case from the plaintiff.

In other words, the defendant, from 2010 to 2013, moved a vehicle into the plaintiff to operate the business and borrowed it as operating income around 2010.