A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 80 million to the Defendant five times from September 201 to October 2013, 2013, but the Defendant did not repay it. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 80 million and damages for delay. Accordingly, the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, but the Defendant claimed that it was KRW 70 million, not KRW 80 million.

B. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had been engaged in money transactions over several times with their knowledge from a few hundreds of years, and the Defendant lent a total amount of KRW 80 million to the Defendant around January 2016, in the dialogue with the Plaintiff (i.e., the Plaintiff). However, this is not a sound to the Plaintiff. However, the circumstances in the Republic of Korea may not be the word now, so it has been systematically repaid. In full view of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant in total; and (c) the Plaintiff had never paid money to the Plaintiff, regardless of whom the inner test was flad; and (d) the Plaintiff had correctly lent money to the Defendant.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80 million and the damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from July 16, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.