A. On August 26, 1994, while the Plaintiff was working as the Defendant’s provisional government, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on August 26, 199 without setting the interest monthly and due date.

(No. 1) (b) a loan certificate drawn up at the time.

Since then, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on June 8, 1997, KRW 1,500,000 on June 30, 1997, KRW 2,000,000 on July 10, 1997, and KRW 1,400,000 on October 1, 1997, and all of the interest and maturity were not determined.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, additionally lent KRW 4,360,000 on February 5, 1997, and KRW 1,00,000 on November 3, 1997, and KRW 2,500,000 on November 11, 1997, by means of remitting the Defendant’s wife and the Plaintiff’s name to the account in the name of the Defendant’s wife, and all of them did not set the interest and the maturity period.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff sought payment of the loan principal of KRW 37,760,000 and the interest accrued from the loan principal of KRW 61,64,795, which was not paid until August 17, 2015; and (b) the agreement and statutory interest accrued after August 18, 2015 on the loan principal of KRW 61,64,795, which was not paid until August 17, 2015.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid 29,030,000 won to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2015, including the repayment of 3,000,000 won out of the above 20,000,000 won on or around October 1995, and that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in 198 on the exemption of interest, and therefore, the Defendant claimed that the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 870,00,000.

B. Determination 1) Of the above KRW 20,000,000, the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to whether to repay KRW 17,000,000 and the Defendant did not have any dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have prepared a loan certificate of KRW 17,00,000, but the Defendant did not have any effect at present. The Defendant asserts that the above KRW 17,000,000 is the remainder of the amount repaid KRW 3,00,000 among the above KRW 20,000,000, the Defendant asserts that the said KRW 17,000 is the remainder of the amount repaid, but it is difficult to believe that the authenticity is recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s allegation in the above part is without merit.