1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 1, 2014 to October 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 10 million on October 15, 2014, KRW 43 million on October 17, 2014, and KRW 53 million on October 17, 2014 does not conflict between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 53 million was the loan that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant within two weeks from the date of repayment from the date of loan. Of these, KRW 43 million was the loan that the Plaintiff lent from the lending company to the Plaintiff, and in relation thereto, the Plaintiff paid the interest of KRW 1 million per month to the lending company.

Therefore, the defendant calculated by the ratio of 2.64% per annum from November 19, 2015 to the date of full payment to KRW 13 million per month for 13 months from October 17, 2014 to November 17, 2015, which is equivalent to the interest paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as above KRW 53 million and the interest paid by the plaintiff to the loan company.

(2) The above amount is calculated by the ratio of the amount equivalent to the damages equivalent to the interest of KRW 1 million per month.

shall be liable to pay such amount.

B. The Defendant asserted that Nonparty C lent KRW 73 million to Nonparty C on August 18, 2014, KRW 31 million on August 26, 2014, and KRW 140 million on a total, KRW 51 million on October 6, 2014, and was unable to receive the remainder of KRW 53 million on payment by October 6, 2014. However, upon C’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 53 million to the Defendant instead of C.

Therefore, the above 5,300 won was paid by the Defendant, not the money borrowed from the Plaintiff, by the Plaintiff, by subrogation from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

A. In addition to the testimony of the witness C as to the claim for a loan, the above amount of KRW 53 million may be deemed to be the amount that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant within two weeks from the date of repayment from the date of loan. In light of the above testimony, the evidence submitted by the Defendant, including the items of evidence Nos. 4 and 8 (including the serial number), is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.