The defendant.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the said money by the end of January 2014, on the ground that the Defendant, who was the Plaintiff’s annual relationship, “it is necessary to pay KRW 30 million out of the business funds to which the Plaintiff raised.”

After that, the plaintiff urged the defendant to make payment, and the defendant and the defendant assaulted the plaintiff around April 26, 2014.

When the Plaintiff expressed his intention to punish the Defendant under the investigation agency, the Defendant and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 30 million upon requesting the withdrawal of the criminal complaint.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a year of personnel, and the Defendant did not want to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million at the time.

However, despite the defendant's detention, the plaintiff only received the donation of KRW 30 million.

In addition, the defendant did not request the withdrawal of criminal complaint while promising repayment.

3. The Plaintiff’s act of transferring KRW 30 million to the Defendant does not clearly reveal whether the objective meaning is a lending or donation. As such, it should be reasonably construed in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of social norms and transaction norms so as to conform to the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively taking into account the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the said juristic act, transaction practices, etc.

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff shall pay the above money to the defendant without setting the interest or the due date.