A. From November 5, 2007 to December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 418,653,753 to the Defendant 32 times in total. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 418,653,753 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s receipt of KRW 418,653,753 from the Plaintiff is consistent with the fact that the Defendant received KRW 418,653,753 from the Plaintiff. However, KRW 80,53,753 from the Defendant’s receipt of the check from the Plaintiff is not the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff, but the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff. 2) As above, the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff is KRW 338,10,00 after deducting KRW 80,53,753 from the check discount amount at KRW 418,653,753.

The Defendant remitted 144,600,000 won to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and delivered 5 pages (total face value of KRW 193,50,000) of the number of shares in his possession to the Plaintiff, thereby repaying 338,10,000 won in full, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

2. Determination

A. On November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff, who was operating a credit business to determine the cause of the claim, entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for the loan amount of KRW 200 million, monthly interest rate of KRW 30 million, and November 30, 2008, and loans KRW 338,100,000 to the Defendant from November 5, 2007 to December 26, 2007, since there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 338,10,000 and delay damages.

Furthermore, while the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 80,553,7583 was also lent to the Defendant, according to each of the evidence No. 1 (including the provisional number), it is only recognized that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 80,553,753 to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

B. Each of the evidence No. 7, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, and No. 2, as to the Defendant’s defense of repayment.