1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 13,727,746 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from June 2, 2016 to September 22, 2017.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff loaned interest of KRW 10 million on June 11, 2012, and KRW 500,000 on June 14, 2012 to the Defendant without a fixed period of time, and that the Plaintiff lent KRW 500,000 on June 14, 2012 to the Defendant, and contrary to the foregoing, the statement No. 1 of evidence No.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 15 million to the plaintiff and damages for delay claimed by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff, but invested money while running a business related to the plaintiff and the non-party, and that the above business was liquidated because it became difficult to do so, so that the plaintiff did not have any money to settle the case and rather paid nine million won to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff was in partnership with the defendant that the plaintiff was in partnership with the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

However, since the above argument by the defendant contains the argument that the above argument should be deducted since it paid the plaintiff the above money, it can be acknowledged that the defendant paid the plaintiff KRW 500,000 won on July 16, 2012, KRW 200,000 on September 21, 2012, and KRW 100,000 on July 29, 2015, in full view of the purport of the whole argument in the statement of No. 2, No. 2, and the purport of the whole argument.

Furthermore, according to the health records and evidence No. 2 as to whether the above money was repaid in excess of 5.5 million won, the above money merely appears to have been paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the payment of its insurance money on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the Defendant’s assertion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

Of the interest agreement on the instant monetary loan agreement, the portion exceeding 30% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, is null and void. Thus, 3.5 million won paid by the Defendant.