(1) The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was a loan to the Defendant of KRW 1 million, which was remitted to the Defendant on August 3, 2015. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant promised to marry upon marriage, it is highly probable that the said money was transferred to the Defendant on other grounds, based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 1 million to the Defendant, even though there was a dispute as to whether it was a loan or a donation, and that the amount of money that the Defendant deemed to have received from the Plaintiff was a loan. The date and time of transfer of KRW 1 million was August 3, 2015. This is deemed as a loan to the Defendant after the date when the Plaintiff paid the entire deposit to the lessor on June 22, 2015. In light of the fact that the said money was transferred to the Defendant on other grounds, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that it was a loan of KRW 1 million to the Defendant.

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37 million borrowed and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 13, 2016, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, to September 27, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this case, deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, and the damages for delay calculated from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion is a de facto marriage with the defendant.