A. 1) The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the money indicated in the following table on six occasions without setting the due date for repayment (hereinafter referred to as “existing loan”) (hereinafter referred to as “existing loan”), covering each of the above loans.

(1) The Plaintiff shall set the amount of 10,00,000 won per month on July 27, 1993, 200,000 won on September 7, 21993, 30,000 won on August 8, 1994; 10,000,000 won on August 30, 1994; 10,000 won on September 10, 194; 10,000,00 won on September 26, 1994; 10,000 won on September 26, 200; 20,00 won on September 10, 200; 3.0,00 won on September 10, 200, 209; and 3.0,000 won on September 10, 200, 209; and

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-6 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, regardless of whether the agreement in this case is a light agreement or a quasi-loan contract (a light or quasi-loan for consumption is identical in that both the parties extinguish the existing debt and establish the new debt, but in light of the light, there is no difference between the existing debt and the new debt, while in principle, in quasi-loan for consumption, it is recognized as identical in principle. In this case, there is no security, guarantor, and no special defense attached to the existing loan, and there is no benefit from distinguishing between the ordinary loan and the quasi-loan for consumption from both the plaintiff and the defendant) the existing loan was extinguished by the validity of the agreement in this case, and the total amount of the repayment period for each part of the loan at the same date as indicated in Table 2 arrives.