A. The fact that the Plaintiff, the principal of which, around 2004, lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant, the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff, at around 2004, and that, after receiving reimbursement of KRW 10,000,000 on August 4, 2004, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10,000 again on January 20, 200, there is no dispute between the parties.

(total amount of KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the loan of this case”). (b)

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant agreed to pay 200,000 won each month from January 2013 as interest interest on the instant loan.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 12, the defendant, except for several months from 2013 to 2015, transferred KRW 200,000,000 to before and after the 28th day of each month, in addition to those listed in evidence Nos. 2-1 through 12, the defendant transferred KRW 20,000 to April 30, 2014.

The fact that the transfer was made to the account of the Plaintiff’s spouse (the Defendant’s spouse) is recognized.

① However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are close-friendly, and the Plaintiff voluntarily acknowledged that they did not demand interest at the time of the initial loan. ② The Defendant, as seen above, remitted KRW 7,00,000,000 (= KRW 4,000,000 on March 31, 2014) separate from remitting KRW 200,000,000 each month, (i.e., April 29, 2014; KRW 1,00,000,000 on September 5, 2014; and (ii) the Defendant transferred money of KRW 1,00,000,000 on September 5, 2014, deeming that the principal was paid from the Do to the above KRW 200,00,00,000 on account of the fact that the principal was remitted to the Plaintiff’s 300,000,00,000.

2. Judgment on the defense of performance

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s total of KRW 13,800,000 (i.e., KRW 6,800,000) is deemed to have repaid the principal, and thus, the amount of the loan in question is KRW 30,000,000.