1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 200,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 18% per annum from August 1, 2015 to February 25, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant on several occasions, including lending KRW 200 million to the Defendant around 2013. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to specify a total of KRW 58 billion and pay 1.5% per month interest.

On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 300 million out of the principal, and KRW 8 million out of the principal on May 22, 2015, respectively, and received interest from August 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 200 million and the interest or delay damages after August 1, 2015.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion shows the Plaintiff’s presentation of the loan certificate of KRW 58 billion (a) that the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff’s own presentation, which is nothing more than the content of the actual obligation.

The Defendant paid KRW 388,320,00 to the Plaintiff, on July 31, 2014, the amount actually borrowed from the Plaintiff was exceeded KRW 177,272,727 as at the time of drawing up the loan certificate (the Defendant’s claim on December 7, 2016) and paid KRW 388,320,00,00. Rather, the Defendant paid KRW 211,047,273 to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

2. Judgment on the assertion

A. In full view of the facts of recognition as follows: (a) the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant around January 7, 2013, and thereafter, the Plaintiff borrowed money to the Defendant on several occasions on July 31, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 58 million from the Plaintiff after settling accounts of money transactions until July 31, 2014; and (c) interest was stated as KRW 1.5% per annum (18% per annum and KRW 1.5% per annum per annum, but this is determined to be a clerical error in the interest per month); (d) it is recognized that there was no statement on the loan certificate as to the maturity of payment of the monthly interest (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”).