In addition, on December 7, 2015, the fact that the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would repay KRW 3,000,000, not the total amount of the above debt (Evidence 7) is not different (Evidence 7).

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 30% per annum, the agreed interest rate from June 1, 2008 to July 14, 2014, and the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which the Plaintiff seeks from the next day to the day of full payment.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the loan claim of this case was in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, since the loan claim of this case was paid as compensation for the non-continct relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had an inhumane relationship at the time of the occurrence of the instant loan claims only with the statement Nos. 2-1 and 2.

On the other hand, even if it is recognized that there was an inhumanity relationship, it cannot be readily concluded that the money was a price for the continuation of the inhumanity relationship solely on the ground that the money was paid between the parties during the continuance of the inhumanity relationship. However, it is insufficient to recognize it solely with the descriptions of subparagraphs 2-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

The plaintiff asserts that the notarial deed of this case was prepared on commission by the agent, and the plaintiff did not confer the power of representation as to the above commission, and that the defendant used the key to the apartment living in the plaintiff to appropriate the plaintiff's seal impression.

However, the whole purport of the pleading is the entry of Nos. 2 and 4.