A. The plaintiff is the former husband of C, and the defendant is the former husband of the above C's accommodation D.

B. On October 17, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 50 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “the amount of remittance”). Around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 40 million from the mother E of the above C and again remitted the amount to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 9 and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On September 1998, the Plaintiff initially set the amount of remittance of this case to the Defendant at KRW 20 million and later set the amount of remittance of this case at 2% per month.

However, the Defendant did not fully pay the principal of the above loan amounting to KRW 70 million and did not pay interest on April 12, 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from April 13, 2013 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of the above loan amounting to KRW 70 million and KRW 79.8 million with interest accrued until April 12, 2013, and KRW 9.8 million with interest accrued from KRW 79.8 million, and the remaining principal amount of KRW 70 million.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount of remittance in this case is a loan to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. In full view of the judgment as to the cause of the claim(1) as to Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-2, witness D's testimony and whole purport of the pleading, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) Before October 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the said D.

(B) On November 6, 2013, the Defendant divided conversations with the Plaintiff on the F1st floor of Suwon-si, Suwon-si around 6:48 on November 6, 2013.

The main contents of the conversation are as follows:

Plaintiff

: It is limited to those which have been beyond the interest rate by means of punishment.

As such, the principal is not at issue, but at issue.