(a) 37,500,000 Won and its interest rate of 12% per annum from May 30, 2020 to the date of complete payment.

A. On November 14, 2015, the Plaintiff determined KRW 40,000 to the Defendant on November 30, 2017 as the due date for reimbursement of KRW 7,500,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 7,500,000 out of the said money.

B. On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won to the Defendant on October 10, 2017, with the maturity of ten million payment fixed as of October 10, 2017, and the Defendant paid 5,00,000 won out of the said money to the Plaintiff.

(c)

On April 12, 2015, the Plaintiff lent USD 3,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,50,000 won with the remaining 32,00,000 won out of the loans as of November 14, 2015, and 5,000,000 won remaining after the repayment due date, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 30, 2020 to the date of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as requested by the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay damages with 12% per annum as of May 30, 2020 after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case from May 30, 200 to the date of full payment. In addition, the above delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case from May 30, 202 to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant introduced state C, while allowing the plaintiff to join the 40,000,000 foot to the defendant, and 40,000,000,000 won out of the plaintiff's loan to the defendant against the defendant was finally agreed upon by the defendant to pay C with the fraternity to be paid from C, and the defendant was unable to repay C with the wind which does not cause C to pay the fraternity in good faith in accordance with the agreement, so the defendant did not have a duty to pay the above loan to the plaintiff. However, although the statement of the evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the above assertion, the defendant's assertion is just because it is argued by the defendant.