9. The fact that a loan of KRW 20 million was lent by the end of 30.30,000 is not in dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the loan of KRW 20 million and the delay damages.

(hereinafter “instant loan claim”). 2. Determination on the Defendant’s defense

A. From the mid-term period of July 2015 to September 1, 2015, the Defendant completed a request from the Plaintiff for the repair of a stove, boiler tank repair, bathing bath reconstruction, etc., and was paid KRW 6 million in return, and thus, the Defendant alleged to offset the instant loan claim with the price claim. However, the Defendant’s defense to this effect is without merit, as there is no other evidence to prove that the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 7 (including the paper number) alone are insufficient to prove the above assertion.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s payment guarantee against C, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 6 million out of the construction cost, and the Defendant subrogated to C, which accordingly, asserts to the effect that it offsets the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction price to C.

However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness C of the party trial, the plaintiff ordered C engaged in the construction business under the name of D on July 7, 2015, to pay for the 30 million won of the construction cost, and thereafter, the additional construction was made. The additional construction cost was paid for 21 million won, and C completed all the construction work, but the plaintiff paid to C only KRW 39 million of the total construction cost from July 8, 2015 to July 24, 2015, and thereafter C’s balance of the construction cost was KRW 12 million.