1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of the loan amounting to KRW 56,00,000 and damages equivalent to KRW 12,016,187 according to the repayment of overdue interest related to the loan.

The first instance court rejected the claim for return of loan and the claim for damages. Since it is apparent that only the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the scope of judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim for return of loan quoted in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) on January 8, 201, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 27,000,000 to the Defendant without setting the due date and interest rate; and (b) on the same year.

2. 9.19,00,000 won, and the same year.

9. A loan of KRW 56,00,000 in total, including KRW 7,000,000 on November 14, 2012, and KRW 56,000,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the loan amounting to KRW 56,00,000 and the delay damages to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant was KRW 27,00,000,000 on January 8, 201, and the same year

2. 9.19,00,000 won, and the same year.

9. The fact that the remittance of KRW 56,00,000 in total, including KRW 7,000,000, and KRW 56,000 on November 14, 2012, has no dispute between the parties.

However, the plaintiff borrowed the above money from the plaintiff on the first day for pleading of the trial at the court of first instance. The plaintiff is a relative of the plaintiff and the non-party C who is the husband of the defendant. Even if based on the plaintiff's above statement, the person who is responsible for the return of the above loan to the plaintiff shall be deemed to be non-party C, not the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's above

(A) The plaintiff asserted that the defendant led to the confession of the loan in the first instance court, but the main contents of each written reply made by the defendant in the first instance court are that C borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, which is the defendant's husband, and it is not that the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have made a confession in the court.

Even if the plaintiff's above assertion is related to the non-party C's obligation to return the loan to the plaintiff, the daily home affairs.