1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,80,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 27, 2013 to February 13, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1 (a receipt and appraiser C's fingerprint appraisal result may be recognized as the authenticity thereof), Gap evidence 2 and 3, the plaintiff lent 3,500,000 won to the defendant around March 2, 2004 without due date, and the plaintiff lent 19,30,000 won in total over 28 times from March 11, 2004 to 28 times without due date. The defendant shall pay 22,80,000 won (i.e. 3, 50,000 won) and damages for delay calculated from March 27, 2013 to 2014 under the Civil Act as to the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay 3,50,000 won per annum from the next day of this case's original payment order, which is the next day of this case's original payment order, to 20% per annum of 2014.

(1) The Defendant’s statement that the Plaintiff received KRW 19,30,000 in total from the Plaintiff was reversed the statement to the effect that the Plaintiff did not later receive KRW 4,894,700 which was not later remitted to the account. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant received KRW 19,30,000 in total, taking into account the written evidence No. 3. The Defendant used the money received from the Plaintiff as a litigation cost, and agreed to transfer 60% of the share of the land subject to the lawsuit to the Plaintiff, so the money received from the Plaintiff was not a loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the above agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

In other words, the Plaintiff asserts that he lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on October 31, 2003, and thus, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1-2 (Receipt) as shown above is admissible as evidence, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.