1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the amount of the judgment ordering the payment of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. Accordingly, the defendant only appealed against the part of the counterclaim claim of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which

2. From December 19, 2014 to April 2, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 9,963,00 as indicated in the following table from the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 9,963,00 to the Defendant for damages incurred therefrom.

On December 19, 2014, the defendant's assertion 259,000 related to the temporary loan of the amount of money borrowed from the defendant's credit card to pay the plaintiff's purchase cost of clothes with the defendant's credit card No. 259,000 on December 19, 2014, to the defendant's payment of the plaintiff's purchase cost of clothes with the defendant's credit card No. 775,000 on February 20, 2016, and the plaintiff's automobile repair cost to the defendant's credit card No. 410,000 on November 20, 2015, in lieu of the plaintiff's father's book No. 527,00,000 on November 29, 2015, the plaintiff transferred the money to the plaintiff as a total of 30,006,000,0000 won of the plaintiff's house purchase cost and electrical construction cost to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. First of all, according to the above Nos. 1, 2, and 3 claims on loans, the fact that there are the details of Defendant’s card use amounting to KRW 259,000 from C points on December 19, 2014 and KRW 775,00 from D on February 20, 2016 may be acknowledged as having been established on December 2, 201. However, the fact that there is the details of card use alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff borrowed the amount equivalent to the amount of card use amount from Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Next, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s construction of the Plaintiff’s wife’s father’s book around November 20, 2015, where: (a) the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties; or (b) the Plaintiff did not perform the Plaintiff’s construction of the Plaintiff’s wife’s book around November 20, 2015.