1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 11, 2017 to June 15, 2018.

From October 25, 2013 to September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 51,201,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 per month as interest on loans from November 2013 to September 2017. As such, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 13,80,000 for 46 months from November 2013 to September 2017.

However, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 14,027,00 in total from December 2, 2013 to August 3, 2015, and KRW 4,470,00 in total from November 22, 2013 to September 5, 2017 as interest repayment, and as such, the Defendant paid KRW 37,174,000 in total (= KRW 51,201,00 in - KRW 14,027,00 in total) and interest KRW 9,30,00 in total (= KRW 13,800,00-4,470,000 in total) and interest KRW 46,504,00 in total and delay damages thereon.

Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties had given and received money between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine regarding the cause of the claim, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan was lent is proved by the plaintiff as to the fact of the loan.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by each of the statements (including the partial number of proof; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence No. 1, 2, 7, 9, and 11, the voice of evidence No. 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 30 million on November 21, 2013, and KRW 20 million on December 25, 2013, without fixing the maturity period. It is recognized that the Plaintiff given the Defendant a peremptory notice from July 31, 2017.

On November 21, 2013, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 30 million on December 25, 2013 and KRW 30 million on December 25, 2013.

The content of each smartphone message dated 31, 2017 between the original Defendant, September 4, 2017, and September 5, 2017, and the content of the smartphone message on August 29, 2017.