1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3 million to Plaintiff A; and (b) 5% per annum from June 12, 2014 to July 2, 2015, respectively.

Plaintiff

A’s assertion of determination as to A’s claim has lent a total of KRW 7 million to the Defendant from April 17, 2012 to October 16, 2012, but has not been repaid KRW 3 million among them.

Plaintiff

On October 29, 2012, A lent KRW 2 million to the Defendant as down payment at a restaurant.

Plaintiff

On October 29, 2012, A lent KRW 10,439,270 to the Defendant as a security deposit with the financial resources for selling apartment houses.

Plaintiff

On December 20, 2012, A lent KRW 2 million to the Defendant with the money in which the vehicle was disposed of.

Plaintiff

A from December 1, 2012 to December 29, 2012, from December 1, 2012, a total of 6,038,680 won was lent to the Defendant as the construction price for a restaurant.

Plaintiff

A on December 18, 2012, with the money borrowed from E, lent KRW 3 million to the Defendant with the money borrowed from E.

Judgment

According to the evidence No. 6 and No. 14 of the judgment on the claim for loans of KRW 3 million on December 18, 2012, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from June 12, 2014, the day following the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, to the plaintiff A, as to the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay damages for delay, calculated at the rate of 3 million won per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until July 2, 2015, which is the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint in this case.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the judgment on the remaining loan claims, in light of the fact that money as alleged by the plaintiff A was paid to the defendant, but each money was in de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff A at the time of payment, it is insufficient to recognize that the money paid was a loan to the defendant of the plaintiff A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff A's assertion is without merit.

Plaintiff

Plaintiff B’s claim is determined on January 2, 2013.