1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the 140,000 bill on April 15, 2013, and thereafter lent the 5,600 bill to the Defendant, and received reimbursement of the 79,000 bill among them.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan 66,600 bills and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant did not borrow 140,000 bills from the plaintiff, but was invested by the defendant. Considering the plaintiff's circumstances, the defendant returned 91,000 bills out of the above investment money.

Meanwhile, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, prepared a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed 140,000 bills from the Plaintiff” was used to show to the Plaintiff’s wife, but received a return of the loan certificate while returning the said money.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the plaintiff invested 140,000 bills in the defendant's cafeteria restaurant business, but around April 2013, the plaintiff decided to borrow the above 140,000 bills from the defendant and around April 15, 2013, it can be recognized that the defendant received a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) stating that "the defendant borrowed the 140,000 bills from the plaintiff" from the defendant around April 15, 2013. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the above money at the plaintiff's request.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that he lent an additional 5,600 bill to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

The defendant asserted that the above Gap evidence No. 1 was prepared in collusion with the plaintiff for the purpose of showing it to the plaintiff's wife, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument is not accepted.

B. The Plaintiff is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 79,00 on two occasions from the Defendant, and comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the Defendant’s debt equivalent to KRW 20,000 out of the Defendant’s debt on November 22, 2014.