2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties, on January 26, 2007, lent KRW 63,800,000 to the defendant, including the lending of KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant on October 10, 208, as stated in the following list of the loan payment and return details. The plaintiff lent KRW 37,071,621 to the defendant, and only paid KRW 37,071,621. Thus, the defendant asserts that he has the duty to pay the remainder of KRW 26,728,379.

The defendant asserts that he did not borrow 7,00,000 won on June 4, 2007 from the plaintiff, and that the remaining loans were fully repaid.

B. (1) It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 7,00,000 to the Defendant on June 4, 2007 only with the statement of Gap evidence No. 1 on June 4, 2007, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including virtual numbers), the plaintiff withdrawn KRW 6,000,000 from his new bank (Account Number C) on June 4, 2007, and KRW 1,200,000 from the same bank (Account Number D) and then deposited KRW 7,200,000 in his new bank account (F) on the same day. Thus, the above KRW 7,00,000 is deemed to have been delivered by the plaintiff to E.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) The following circumstances are acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 100,000 won on December 18, 2007, 4,000,000 won on January 18, 2008, and 8,000,000 won on March 12, 2008, and 10,000 won on May 27, 2008 (excluding the portion without dispute over repayment), and the overall purport of the arguments. In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant, from around 207 to December 2012, 207, were to have borrowed money from the plaintiff from time to time to time, and the defendant could not repay the interest to the plaintiff.