2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 10 million to the Defendant on Nov. 17, 2008, KRW 6 million on May 6, 2009, and KRW 10 million on Jul. 13, 2009.

B. The Defendant, on June 5, 2009, remitted each of the Plaintiff KRW 6 million in total, and KRW 3.5 million on March 15, 201, respectively, to the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21358, Mar. 16, 201>

C. The Plaintiff already demanded the Defendant to return the unpaid balance on several occasions.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 10 evidence (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the party concerned claims against the defendant for the remaining loans of KRW 4 million and damages for delay on the ground that he/she received the payment of KRW 6 million out of KRW 10 million to the defendant.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not have any reason to return KRW 10 million, which was remitted by the Plaintiff, because it was not a loan, and ② Even if the Plaintiff’s loan was made, the Defendant paid an additional amount of KRW 3.5 million to the Plaintiff on March 16, 201, and thus, the balance of the loan is merely KRW 50,000,000.

B. Whether the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 10 million, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff was an investment in the affairs related to the inheritance registration that the Plaintiff was running at the time, and that it was not a loan to the Defendant. However, the following facts acknowledged by the evidence as follows. If the amount was invested, the Defendant was responsible for the investment, and even if the Defendant did not have to return it to the Plaintiff, the Defendant already repaid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 6 million, and the Defendant attempted to reach an agreement with the Plaintiff via D, by taking into account the following factors: (a) the amount is sufficiently recognized as a loan, even if the Defendant did not have to return it to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant attempted to reach an agreement with the Plaintiff as a half of the claim amount.

C. We examine whether the Defendant’s 3.5 million won transferred on March 16, 201 constitutes the repayment of the instant loan.