A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On November 24, 2006, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15,840,000 to the Defendant at a fixed rate of 3% per annum, interest rate of delay 14% per annum, and due date of repayment on November 24, 201 (hereinafter “loan 1”).

(2) On April 9, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 460,000,000 per annum to the Defendant on April 9, 2007, the agreed interest rate of KRW 6.5% per annum, the delayed interest rate of KRW 15.5% per annum, and the due date of repayment of April 9, 2010, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “second loan”). The principal and interest remaining after repayment out of the second loan is interest KRW 431,776,626.

3) Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 440,830,934 (= KRW 9,054,308) KRW 431,776,626.

B. The Defendant asserted that all the first and second loans were repaid by the Defendant.

2. Determination

(a) No dispute between the parties or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15 through 46 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) between the parties;

According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments, the following facts are acknowledged (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s obligations, as the principal obligor or guarantor, and QU (hereinafter referred to as “ QU”)’s obligations against the Plaintiff:

The first loan obligation is the debt No. 24, and the second loan obligation is the debt No. 25.

In the following table, ① “Surety” states only the Defendant’s corresponding amount, ② “The repayment period” is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff extended the payment period after the loan agreement was made if the Plaintiff’s electronic data processing period is later than the due date under the loan agreement. As such, the payment period was based on the computerized data processing process. ③ “interest rate” and “interest rate for delay” are lower than the Plaintiff’s electronic data processing method than the loan agreement.