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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the Plaintiff requested to lend money from the Defendant and decided to lend KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant at a fixed period of six months after the due date for payment on Jan. 5, 2005. The Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to C around Dec. 30, 2004. On Jan. 5, 2005, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000 from C and let C transfer the said money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant who notified the Defendant, and accordingly, C may be recognized as the fact that around Jan. 5, 2005, transferred KRW 20,000 to the Defendant’s live-in account under the Defendant’s name.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million with interest rate of KRW 20,00,000,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 27, 2015 to September 30, 2015, following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served as the original copy of the instant payment order, as the Plaintiff seeks. Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015); Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015).

B. The Defendant alleged that no money was remitted through C to the Defendant’s account in the name of living together with the Defendant. However, the Defendant led to the confession of the facts that the Defendant received KRW 20,000,000 through the Defendant’s wife account by stating that the money was transferred through the Defendant’s wife account on the fourth day of pleading at the court of first instance, but the date was different.

The defendant alleged in the trial that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, but the confession was revoked, but the above confession was contrary to the truth and made an error.