A. The Defendant lent KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff, ① on February 16, 2017, ② KRW 2 million on March 17, 2017, and ② KRW 12 million on March 17, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the instant loan with the Gwangju District Court 2017Gapo6452.

On July 14, 2017, the above court decided to recommend performance that “the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 12 million and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case to the day of full payment.” The above decision was served on the plaintiff on August 7, 2017, and became final and conclusive August 22, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on performance recommendation”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed the total amount of KRW 12 million from the Defendant, and paid KRW 15,850,000 to the Defendant, such as the statement on the attached repayment statement.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff in cash, in addition to the instant loan, and the portion paid from March 13, 2017 to May 22, 2017, out of the amount indicated in the attached Table of Repayment, is a repayment for a loan lent in cash, not the instant loan.

In addition, each 400,000 won paid on October 23, 2017 and November 21, 2017 was paid as the amount equivalent to the rent of the lease agreement on the Category D located in Gwangju Northern-gu.

However, the amount of KRW 4 million out of the amount indicated in the attached Table attached hereto (i.e., KRW 500,000 won on July 27, 2017; KRW 2 million on January 3, 2018; KRW 500,000 on March 2, 2018; KRW 500,000 on July 18, 2018) was paid as the repayment for the instant loan, and the Plaintiff is ultimately unpaid to the Defendant.