2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff from around 2009 to around 2009 while having known the Plaintiff from around 199.2) On June 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) prepared a loan certificate with the content that “the unpaid amount out of the loan during that period shall be KRW 7,650,000; and (b) shall be repaid until April 30, 2013; (c) the agreed rate shall be 36% per annum; and (d) the payment of interest shall be 20% per month.”

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,50,000,000 among the borrowed money, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum as stipulated by the Interest Limitation Act within the scope of the agreed interest rate from June 20, 2012, which is the date of the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to September 8, 2017, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, while being aware of the Plaintiff’s possession of the house, should have the right to receive the payment for his/her father’s marriage, he/she should join a fraternity meeting to which the Plaintiff had the right to receive the payment for his/her father’s marriage, and that the Plaintiff borrowed the money from the Plaintiff since 2009, the Plaintiff did not have the right to receive the payment for his/her father’s life. However, the Defendant’s borrowing of money from the Plaintiff was due to the Plaintiff’s deception, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to repay the money to the Plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be quoted on the ground of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the first instance court sharing the conclusion is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.