A. On March 11, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned 66,007,200 won to the Defendant on March 11, 2009 at the maturity of payment on March 18, 2009, with 9% per annum.

B. The amount unpaid as of January 9, 2014 with respect to the above loan is equivalent to KRW 33,732,200 with respect to the leased principal, and KRW 18,63,513 with respect to accrued interest and delay damages, and KRW 52,395,713 with respect to the loan.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 52,395,713 as the return of the loan and the delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) paid KRW 66,007,200 as the price for the goods to the Plaintiff on the premise that the Defendant received the goods from the Plaintiff, but did not actually receive the price for the goods from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff as to the amount equivalent to the above goods price.

In addition, the defendant set off the above claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff as an automatic claim on the plaintiff's equal amount. If so, the plaintiff's loan claim was extinguished by the defendant's expression of offset intention.

(2) As alleged by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, that the Defendant had a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

C. If so, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 4, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.