A. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with C to the effect that KRW 50,000,000 shall be interest rate of KRW 30% per annum and the due date of payment on December 20, 2014, and the Defendant guaranteed C’s debt to the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. However, the amount actually paid by the Plaintiff to C on June 20, 2014 was KRW 42,10,200,000 calculated by subtracting the total of KRW 7,89,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for prior interest for other loans to C.

The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW C, KRW 1,250,00 on July 31, 2014, and KRW 20,000,00 on August 17, 2015, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2, the purport of whole pleading, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that KRW 48,100,200,000, which was paid by C at KRW 50,000,000, deducted from KRW 1,250,00,00, and KRW 649,80,00, was the principal of the loan. The Plaintiff asserted that the principal of the loan in this case remains 43,597,689,00,00,000, which was paid by C when he/she appropriated the amount paid by C.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff subrogated for 6,00,000 won out of C’s obligations, solely with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1 through 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the plaintiff’s assertion in this part is rejected.

Therefore, the principal of the loan of this case shall be calculated as KRW 42,100,200.

The debt of the loan of this case remains 35,833,257 won, when considering the repayment of the loan of this case by C, (see the following table).

Therefore, as the Defendant seeks from July 12, 2016, the following day after the delivery date of the claim and the application for change of cause as of July 11, 2016, as the Plaintiff sought, the Defendant’s KRW 35,83,257 to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 18, 2016, which is the date of the imposition of a considerable dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation, until October 18, 2016.