A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made between May 10, 2006 and September 26, 2008, lent a total of KRW 117,400,000 as shown in the attached Table 1 list to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of the said money and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s loan is different from the facts, and the Defendant’s loan is already repaid to the Plaintiff as shown in the attached Table 2, and there is no obligation against the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of loan, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on May 10, 2006, and September 3, 2007, and 4,000,000 to the Defendant on September 3, 2007, but there is no evidence to support this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to September 25, 2008. 2) The Plaintiff’s determination of KRW 10,000,000 on September 25, 2008 did not conflict between the parties, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant on September 25, 200, in full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3-12-2, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above amount was paid to the Defendant on September 25, 2005.

Even if the plaintiff's family claim is the claim for return of KRW 10,000,000 paid to the defendant as the fraternity money, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that the defendant has a duty to return the above money to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on June 25, 2011, as to the claim on the loan amounting to KRW 20,000,000,000 on June 25, 2011, but the part exceeding KRW 7,000,000,00 as the Defendant is the person, it is insufficient to accept the claim solely on the written statement in subparagraph 1-3, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

In addition, the defendant is also liable for the above 7,000,000 won loan.