1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 60,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from July 5, 2016 to August 17, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. From March 27, 2014 to May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 140,000,000 to the Defendant as indicated in the following table.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan 140,000,000 won and damages for delay.

On March 27, 2014, 200:320,000,00 on March 27, 2014; 15:14:10,000,000 on March 27, 2014; 30,000 on January 22, 2015; 20,000 on April 27, 2015; 40,000 on March 240, 2015; 6.10,000,000 on March 6, 2015; 10,000,000 on March 6, 200; 10,000,007; 10,000,000 on March 30, 2015; 10,008; 10,000, Oct. 10, 2015;

B. Determination 1) We examine whether the Plaintiff extended KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant on March 27, 2014 and January 222, 2015, respectively, and the Plaintiff extended KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on March 2, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties. Furthermore, we examine whether the Plaintiff additionally lent the Defendant other money than KRW 60,00,000,000, in addition to the total amount of the above loans.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the whole pleadings, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 00,00,000 to the defendant's deposit account on March 27, 2014, KRW 20,000, KRW 20,000 on January 27, 2015, KRW 10,000 on March 6, 2015, KRW 10,000 on March 30, 2015, KRW 10,000 on April 17, 2015, KRW 10,000 on April 17, 2015, and KRW 10,000 on May 21, 2015, respectively is recognized.

In a case where a remittance is made to another person's deposit account, the remittance can be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc. Therefore, even if there is no dispute as to the existence of money between the parties, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is contested by the defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). However, the Defendant is disputing the nature of each of the above money.