A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 120 million to the Defendant on April 21, 201 as the due date of repayment on December 21, 2011, KRW 70 million, and KRW 100 million on a monthly basis (hereinafter “loan No. 1”), and the due date of repayment on May 6, 201 as the due date of repayment on May 6, 201, KRW 70 million, and KRW 140 million on a monthly basis (hereinafter “loan No. 2”).

Although the defendant asserts that in the case of the first loan, the plaintiff did not lend it to the plaintiff, but made an investment in D with the defendant's husband's recommendation, the defendant's husband made an investment in the purchase of real estate. However, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that the first loan was acknowledged solely with the statement of the evidence No. 1, and to recognize that the first loan was an investment in D, and there

B. Meanwhile, as of May 6, 2016, the fact that the principal of the loans Nos. 1 and 2 is KRW 260 million (i.e., KRW 140 million) and the interest or delay damages are KRW 234,887,671 (the amount calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month within the maximum interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act) is no dispute between the parties.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 494,887,671 (=260 million) plus delay damages calculated at the rate of 18% per annum that the Plaintiff seeks within the scope of the agreed delay damages, as to the principal amount of KRW 260,000,000,000 from May 7, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.