대여금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 68,298,082 and the amount of KRW 8,298,082 from April 21, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in each statement in Gap evidence No. 1 through 4, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the interest of Sep. 8, 2006 in 30 million won per annum (interest rate of 8% per annum). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2000, May 2, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 2000, Mar. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 200, Apr. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 15 million won (interest rate of 1.6% per annum); Presidential Decree No. 20687, Jun. 6, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20747, Apr. 20, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20750, Mar. 7, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 2687, Apr. 20, 2005>
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. A. The Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation, as a fraud at the time of the Plaintiff’s husband’s death (the Defendant’s husband at the time of his death), was able to hold a funeral and received approximately KRW 9 million from the Defendant’s husband. As such, the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay for the remainder other than KRW 9 million out of the borrowed money of KRW 60 million at the time of the Plaintiff’s death as the Defendant’s husband (the Defendant’s husband at the time of his death). Therefore, the Defendant’s defense cannot be accepted, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
B. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant asserted that he/she remitted KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff as part of the above borrowed money, and that the Plaintiff received the said money but did not receive it as part of the loan. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant donated KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff without paying it to the Plaintiff, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant, despite the existence of the obligation to borrow money equivalent to KRW 75 million to the Plaintiff, donated KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff without paying it to the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense of repayment is reasonable, except that.