On the other hand, the defendants raised a defense to the effect that they paid 10 million won and 47.5 million won to the plaintiff via D, respectively, to the effect that they paid 10 million won to the plaintiff.

According to the purport of Eul's statement and the whole pleadings, the defendants sent KRW 10 million to the bank account of the representative director E of the plaintiff on April 8, 2010. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendants and the plaintiff did not seem to have any other credit or debt relationship other than the above loan, and in light of the fact that the above remittance period is close to it after the above repayment period, it is reasonable to deem that the above KRW 10 million was paid for the repayment of the above loan obligation.

(A) The Plaintiff appears to have claimed that the Defendants paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff’s bank account from October 7, 2010 and paid KRW 47.5 million to the Plaintiff’s bank account. However, in light of the other party’s remittance, time, and each of the statements and arguments, there is no reason to acknowledge that the Defendants paid KRW 47.5 million to the Plaintiff on behalf of D. Meanwhile, according to the facts without dispute, the Defendants wired KRW 47.5 million to the bank account of D and F on April 14, 2010, and there is no other evidence to support this.

Ultimately, the defendants' defense is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendants to resist the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay damages for delay (=50 million won - 10 million won) and the damages for delay.