Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the summary is that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 5 million on October 12, 2017, and KRW 60 million on August 8, 2017. The Defendant paid only KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2017, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 64 million. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at 12% per annum from the day following the day when the copy of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant, to which the copy of the instant complaint was served, to the day of full payment.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff leased KRW 65 million to the Defendant, without dispute between the parties to the judgment, or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including each number number), and the entire purport of the pleadings:

It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

From the Plaintiff’s account, the fact that the Defendant was transferred to the Defendant on October 12, 2017 and the amount of KRW 60 million on November 8 of the same year is recognized.

However, the circumstances leading up to the transfer from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account are as follows:

C transferred to the Defendant on October 12, 2017, KRW 5 million to repay personal debt, and regardless of the Plaintiff, the money was transferred to the Defendant on November 6, 2017 under the pretext of personal loan regardless of the Plaintiff.

C As above, C was convicted on the ground that he embezzled 65 million won, which was remitted to the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s account, and the aforementioned conviction was finalized (Seoul District Court Decision 2019No. 292). In the above criminal case, C asserted that he was not guilty by using KRW 65 million for the Plaintiff’s business or the Plaintiff’s business, but all of it was rejected. The above KRW 65 million was recognized as having been illegally obtained the Plaintiff’s money for personal use.

Even upon examining all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, C is the Plaintiff’s work.