2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 11, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million from the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant, which was operated by the Plaintiff, to the account in the name of the Defendant, and on March 20, 2008, paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant as a check.

B. On March 20, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the share owned by the Defendant out of the area of 3,421 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, with the maximum debt amount of 100 million won, but did not complete the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage.

C. On November 18, 2008, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the account under the Plaintiff’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion lent to the defendant a total of KRW 80 million per annum, including KRW 30 million on February 11, 2008, and KRW 50 million on March 20, 2008, and KRW 50 million on November 18, 2008. As such, the plaintiff was paid KRW 32,826,971 on the loan interest and KRW 30 million on the loan interest, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 30 million on the loan interest.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant borrowed 50 million won from the plaintiff on March 20, 2008 without interest agreement, and repaid 50 million won on November 18, 2008. The defendant received 30 million won from the plaintiff on February 11, 2008.

3. We examine whether the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant on February 11, 2008 (hereinafter “the amount of remittance of this case”) is a loan. The entries in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the witness E’s testimony, which seem to conform to the Plaintiff’s assertion, are difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Rather, the following circumstances, which can be known by taking into account the descriptions in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the witness F’s testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant all of KRW 80 million deposited from the Plaintiff’s account on March 20, 2008, and that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the entire amount of KRW 80 million deposited from the Plaintiff’s account.