The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, C, D, and E are South Korea.

B. The mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant died around September 2002.

(c)

South Korea, including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, have completed a funeral ceremony and distributed the remainder of the funeral money, and the Defendant’s share was KRW 5 million.

(d)

On September 2002, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s share.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff 1) around October 199, the plaintiff set the monthly interest of KRW 30 million to the defendant as KRW 500,000,000,000, and did not prepare a loan certificate with the defendant as a relative relationship.

The defendant did not pay interest of KRW 500,000 after paid two times.

On September 2002, the Defendant repaid 5 million won as part of the principal of the loan out of the amount of the mother’s father’s father’s contribution.

On September 2009, the defendant additionally repaid KRW 5 million as part of the principal of the loan around 2009.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 20 million (= KRW 30 million - KRW 5 million) to the Plaintiff and the delayed damages.

2) Defendant (A) did not borrow KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff.

(B) Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff, the statute of limitations expired.

B. Whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant around October 1999, it is not sufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the following circumstances only with the descriptions of evidence as set forth in subparagraphs A and C, and the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial witness C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the above facts and arguments can only be recognized as a whole by taking into account the following circumstances. Thus, the argument that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant around October 199 is without merit.

① The Plaintiff is KRW 30 million.