대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 187,50,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 2, 2015 to May 13, 2016, and the Plaintiff.
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim and the whole arguments, the plaintiff can recognize that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 256 million to the defendant from May 26, 2006 to March 28, 2008. Meanwhile, the plaintiff received a total of KRW 27.5 million from the defendant, ① from September 25, 2006 to August 11, 2008, ② from September 2006 to August 11, 2008, and ② from November 27, 2010.
[Defendant asserted that KRW 200 million paid by the Plaintiff on May 26, 2006 is not a loan, but an investment loan. However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 5 and the overall purport of oral arguments, ① at the time when the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to the Defendant on May 26, 2006, "a tea certificate" was prepared with the purport that the Plaintiff shall return a certain percentage of the principal and interest accrued between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of payment of KRW 200 million to the Defendant. ② The Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff received KRW 30 billion from May 26, 2006 and paid KRW 205 billion as interest and principal amount to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant received KRW 250,000,000,000 from KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.