2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is 250 million won against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

A. 1) The Plaintiff borrowed total of KRW 83,181,280 from May 30, 2003 to February 20, 2004 from the Defendant, and paid total of KRW 103,397,000 up to February 20, 2004 to the Defendant, thereby repaying the above principal and interest on the loan. 2) The Plaintiff thereafter repaid the principal and interest on the loan from the Defendant on June 24, 2004 to the Defendant.

7. On April 19, 2005, a total of KRW 47,500,000, including KRW 18,750,000, has been borrowed again, and all of them have been repaid on April 19, 2005.

3) The Plaintiff again borrowed a total of KRW 35,750,000 from the Defendant four times until July 19, 2006, including KRW 18,750,000, and paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 41,380,000 up to July 19, 2006. On the above date, the amount of interest and principal calculated at the rate of 30% per annum on the interest rate of KRW 35,750,00 per annum under the Interest Limitation Act was paid to the Defendant at the rate of 30% per annum from the above loan amount to October 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the Defendant 721,659,670, and delay damages calculated from the Plaintiff’s total annual interest and interest rate of KRW 721,670,00, which had been paid to the Defendant to the Defendant from the date of the above date to the date of 2014.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, if the defendant asserts that the cause of the receipt is a loan for consumption, it shall be proved by the plaintiff that it was received due to the loan for consumption.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972).