A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including the branch number), even if the plaintiff loaned 7,6050,000 won (the sum of the respective transfers of evidence Nos. 3 through 5) to the defendant Eul to the defendant Eul's account from May 10, 2012 to December 20, 2013, the plaintiff can be deemed to have lent 70,000 won to the defendant Eul's account from July 3, 2013, which is recognized as Eul's evidence No. 10,000 won, and 20,000 won from Oct. 5, 2013, the plaintiff lent 70,000 won to the defendant Eul's account to the defendant Eul, but it can be deemed that the plaintiff loaned 70,0000 won to the plaintiff's account to the defendant Eul, who was not the defendant Eul's account he loaned her money to the defendant Eul's account.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from May 31, 2019, which is the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 76 million) to May 31, 2019, which is the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served, to the day before November 15, 2019, and the day following the day on which the above Defendant rendered a ruling that it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent the total amount of KRW 160,6920,000 including the above amount to Defendant B, but the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 is alone.