A. The following circumstances are: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim; (b) Gap 1-1, 2, 6, and Eul 1 through Eul 6 may be acknowledged by the purport of the entire entries and pleadings; (c) the plaintiff loaned to defendant B a total of KRW 401,00,000 from October 1, 2018 to March 8, 2019; (b) the defendant Eul repaid the plaintiff a total of KRW 296,130,000 to the plaintiff during the above period; (c) the defendant Eul paid the loan to the plaintiff on January 21, 2019 through text message sent to the plaintiff on January 21, 201, the loan amount of KRW 13,000,000,0000 to the above defendant's loan amount of KRW 3,000,0000,0000 to the above defendant's loan and delay damages amount of KRW 3,000,008.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the above Defendant made a monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff prior to the aforementioned lending, and from January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018, the Plaintiff loaned the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 236,290,00 to the said Defendant, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the said Defendant would offset the said excess amount of KRW 305,460,000 by unjust enrichment of KRW 69,170,000, which is equivalent to the above excess amount of KRW 305,460,000.

In light of the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to view that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the interest of a certain amount of money transaction during the above-mentioned period in light of the background and duration of the monetary transaction, frequency, and the empirical rule. Thus, it is not based on the assertion of the specific interest agreement.