A. The Plaintiff transferred the Defendant’s account KRW 10 million as of August 13, 2014, KRW 30 million as of January 13, 2017, KRW 30 million as of January 13, 2017, and KRW 43 million as of May 2, 2017.

B. The Defendant deposited the Plaintiff’s account at KRW 4.5 million as of April 15, 2016, and KRW 9.5 million as of January 9, 2018, including KRW 5 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is asserting to the following purport and sought a judgment as to the purport of the claim.

The defendant requested the plaintiff to lend a fixed interest rate of at least 10% per month to the plaintiff (the defendant, when borrowing KRW 10 million per month, agreed to pay the plaintiff the agreed interest of KRW 1 million or KRW 2 million per month, and when borrowing KRW 30 million by adding KRW 4 million or KRW 5 million per month to the plaintiff). Accordingly, the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 43 million to the defendant three times, but the defendant did not pay the remaining interest of KRW 9.5 million to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was made oral, and there is no fact that the documents on the lending agreement, such as the loan certificate, were made in the absence of the defendant's refusal to prepare the loan certificate.

The Plaintiff’s loan principal and interest is calculated on the basis of 24% per annum within the scope that does not conflict with the maximum interest rate limitation under the Interest Limitation Act. If the Defendant’s repayment is appropriated for legal repayment of KRW 9.5 million, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s loan interest rate is KRW 49,083,635 as of January 9, 2018.

The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff the goods of an amount equivalent to KRW 10 million in the market price.

One of the arguments is different from facts, and there is no fact that the plaintiff has agreed with the defendant on the repayment of the substitute as such.

The Plaintiff from the Defendant.