A. If Gap evidence No. 1 added the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 4, the plaintiff lent 500,000 won in cash to the defendant on December 12, 2013; on February 12, 2014, the plaintiff lent 1,000,000 won in the defendant's name to the defendant's account; on September 21, 2014, KRW 350,000 in the same month; on 222.320,000 in the same month; on 320,000 won in the same month; on 25.70,000 won in the above month; on 30,00 won in the above month; on 130,000 won in the above month; on 15,50,000 won in the same month; on 200,706,700 won in the above account; on 300,000 won in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, on March 2, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,170,000 and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 13, 2015, which is the date the Defendant rendered a final judgment, as deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, from March 13, 2015 following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the date of the final judgment, and from December 24, 2015, from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. Meanwhile, the plaintiff asserted that he further lent KRW 6,170,000 to the defendant, as well as KRW 1,830,000, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground, and the court of first instance ordering payment exceeding the above recognized amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions.