A. The fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120 million to the Defendant in 2002, and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 50 million among them by December 31, 2008, and the Defendant paid KRW 51,00,000,000 to the Defendant from February 10, 2012 to February 13, 2014, the fact that the Defendant repaid KRW 51,00,000 in total over 30 times from February 10, 2012 can be recognized by the purport of the evidence No. 1, No. 3, or no dispute exists between the parties.

[Defendant’s previous statement that he borrowed KRW 120,00,000 from the Plaintiff in the trial of the political party is revoked, and at the same time, asserts that the establishment of the confession in the trial is disputing the establishment of the above confession. However, the party that revoked the confession should prove the fact that the confession was caused by mistake in addition to the fact that the confession is contrary to the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994); and there is no evidence to prove that the previous confession that the Defendant borrowed KRW 120,00,000 from the Plaintiff was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, the Defendant’s confession is not accepted.)

Judgment

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff’s outstanding loan amount of KRW 69,00,000 ( KRW 120,000,000 - KRW 51,000,000) and KRW 50,000,000, which is the day following the due date agreed by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff for the remainder of KRW 19,000,000 from January 1, 209, which is the day following the due date agreed by the Defendant, and from November 5, 2015, which appears to be a considerable period for the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff’s debt from November 6, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which appears to be reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation to pay from December 6, 2015 to November 24, 2017; and damages for delay calculated annually by 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act.

The plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from January 1, 2003, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is 50.