1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 4, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100 million to the defendant with interest rate of KRW 5 million per month without setting the due date for repayment, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted KRW 95 million from the advance interest rate of KRW 5 million to the defendant's account that is the birth of the defendant's birth on July 31, 2006 and August 9, 2006, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 100 million and its delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 4, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion that the investment money is investment money, the defendant asserts that the above money was invested in G with the trade name "F Gameland" on the third floor of the E hotel located in Busan Metropolitan Government D, and that it was not a fact that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 3, witness G’s testimony, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff did not met G in remitting the above money to the Defendant, or transfer the contents of entertainment room business and the conditions of investment from G, and ② Even if the said money was transferred to the Defendant, if the Defendant issued a cash custody certificate (Evidence No. 3) in its name to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to pay the said money to the Plaintiff according to its contents. Thus, the witness G’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the said money was an investment bond for G, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant's assertion of invalidity by false conspiracy with the intention of not having the plaintiff undergo an investigation into the entertainment room business.