대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 13, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 8 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of all pleadings, the defendant can be recognized as having lent the plaintiff a total of KRW 21,00,000,000 to the defendant on September 23, 201, and KRW 27,000,000 on September 30, 2011, KRW 30,000,000 on September 30, 201, and KRW 23,000,000 on November 23, 2011, and KRW 21,00,000,000 on December 22, 2011, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages for delay calculated on September 13, 2015 as to the records of this case at the rate of KRW 21,00,000 and KRW 21,000 on September 15, 2015.
2. The defendant's defense is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's defense, since the defendant borrowed the money of this case with gambling money, the defendant did not have a duty to repay to the plaintiff. Thus, the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's defense, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(M) In full view of the facts in this court and the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 5, the defendant, as a result of the following facts: (a) he was convicted of fraud of 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2346 on the ground that he was guilty of the crime that he received the money in this case by acquiring the money in this case from the field corporation by means of false words, such as "A, who is a son who operates a building business, will complete payment upon the completion of the construction work," and (b) he was dismissed; and (c) the appeal was dismissed, but the appeal was dismissed, and it can be recognized that the above facts were dismissed. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant borrowed the money in this case from the plaintiff under any other name than the name of gambling fund, and therefore, the above argument