On April 12, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant, a relative, and subsequently additionally lent KRW 20 million on November 14, 2012.

B. From July 29, 2011 to October 30, 2013, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 27,640,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, upon making an additional entry of the “monthly dividend”, remitted the money to the Plaintiff, and each month’s “distribution” is KRW 1 million.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the instant claim.

(1) The above KRW 100,000,000,000 won was lent in accordance with the statement that guarantees more than 10% per annum, and thereafter, the Defendant paid KRW 1,00,00 per month to the Plaintiff as a dividend. Accordingly, there was an agreement with at least 10% per annum on the interest rate of KRW 1 million per month.

(2) On July 2013, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return KRW 100,000,000 to the said KRW 100,000,000, and the Plaintiff demanded the return of said KRW 20,000 upon delivery of the instant application for modification

(3) Therefore, since the above 26.4 million won paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was fully appropriated for the interest, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day when the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim was served to the Defendant after the day when the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim were served to the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that there was no promise of 10% or more per annum, and there was no interest agreement, and that all the recognized remittance amount was remitted as principal repayment amount.

3. Determination

A. Whether there was an agreement equivalent to the interest equivalent to one million won per month.