1. The defendant's KRW 38,00,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from March 6, 2020 to June 23, 2020 to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 58 million to the Defendant from June 20, 2017 to April 25, 2018; and the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 20 million out of the above loans from the Defendant from October 2017 to October 2017 may be recognized by taking account of the absence of dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of the entries and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 2.

[Defendant paid KRW 161,940,00 to Defendant from May 30, 2015 to April 25, 2018. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 141,567,850, including interest KRW 20 million, to the Plaintiff from October 28, 2016 to March 19, 2018 (the principal of the Defendant’s loan to be paid to the Plaintiff, even according to the Defendant’s assertion as above, is KRW 40,372,150 (= KRW 161,940,000 - KRW 141,567,850).

) On June 9, 2020, at the first date for pleading, the Defendant stated that “the Plaintiff shall return KRW 38 million to the Plaintiff”. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from March 6, 2020, which is the day following the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Plaintiff and the following day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, to June 23, 2020, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would return the above KRW 38 million to the Plaintiff from the end of October 2018, and sought payment of damages for delay by 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 1, 2018 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had to return the above KRW 38 million to the end of October 2018, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is rejected.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is within the above scope of recognition.