A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1, the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 320 million to the Defendant on April 21, 2014 without setting the interest or the due date for payment.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleged that it lent additional KRW 200 million to the Defendant on October 17, 2014, but the following circumstances, which may be known by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3-2, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s additional loan KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s account in the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s account; (ii) there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had been managing his/her own money by using the Defendant’s account No. C as alleged by the Plaintiff; and (iii) according to the record of the mobile phone phone call content (Evidence No. 2) between the original Defendant and the Defendant on March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned the Plaintiff.

In light of the above division of KRW 320 million and KRW 200 million remitted from the net C’s account to the Defendant’s account, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was lent KRW 220 million to the Defendant on October 17, 2014, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. However, the Plaintiff is a person to whom KRW 100 million was paid from the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 220 million (= KRW 320 million - KRW 100 million) to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense is to settle a considerable amount of money in a relationship with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's defense is set off against the plaintiff's claim amount based on the automatic claim. However, there is no proof as to the existence and scope of the above claim amount. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense needs to be examined further.