1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff leased KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant on December 5, 2013 and KRW 8,000,000,000,000 on June 10, 2014 without an agreement between the parties to interest, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of the agreed interest rate of 2.5% per month on the above loan (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s written brief as of October 15, 2015 and the written application for modification of the purport and cause of claim as of November 3, 2015). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was the above interest payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is rejected.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The Defendant’s defense that all of the above loans were repaid. Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s defense was examined as to February 24, 2014, KRW 500,000, and the same year.

4. The fact that a total of KRW 4,400,000 is paid, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant paid the total amount of the loan exceeding the above recognized amount on the ground that the statement in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4-1 of the evidence No. 4-2 is insufficient, and there is no other evidence, so the above loan claim was extinguished within the scope of KRW 4,400,000. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified within the above recognized scope.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that KRW 500,000, which the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff on February 24, 2014, was paid as repayment for the money lent to the Defendant in the name of hospital treatment expenses, not for the repayment of the instant loan.

Therefore, it is true that the debtor has paid money as the repayment of a specific debt.