대여금
1. Paragraph 1 of the order of the judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, is as follows.
1. If Party A’s written evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 showed the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff loans the Defendant a total of KRW 72 million,00,000,000 on August 22, 2014, KRW 1,000,000 on October 2, 2014, KRW 16,500,000 on November 16, 2014, KRW 15,000 on April 23, 2015, KRW 72,00,000 on March 4, 2016, without setting a period for reimbursement.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 26, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the Plaintiff requested the return of the borrowed amount of KRW 72 million and KRW 67 million among them, from May 20, 2016, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant; and from the day when the Plaintiff demanded the return of the remainder of KRW 5 million, from the day when the copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim of this case was served on the Defendant.
2. The defendant's assertion does not borrow the above money from the plaintiff, but asserts that the defendant was paid for the examination and treatment of the plaintiff's child and distance consultation through telephone as a psychological counselor. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted for reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated above as the plaintiff's claim expanded in this court is accepted additionally. It is so decided as per Disposition.