1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 41,600,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from May 17, 2019 to May 31, 2019; and (b).

The Plaintiff asserts that, around November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the said money on the ground that he/she lent a cash of KRW 50 million to the Defendant.

The fact that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff in the content certification [A 2-2] that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2018 is recognized.

However, the defendant asserts that the above money was not borrowed from the plaintiff in the above content certification, but received for the use of the money for living expenses, such as telecom with the joint use of the money in the living relationship.

However, according to the letter notes (A-2, the left side of which the Defendant sent to the other party) as shown in the attached list, the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff’s demand to redeem the money given to the other party, and the Defendant would promptly resolve the issue of money demanded by the Plaintiff. In addition, it is recognized that the Defendant has clearly known that the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff and paid the said money to the effect that “I would promptly pay the money demanded by the Plaintiff.” In light of the fact that “I would not have paid the money from the beginning, and would have paid KRW 5 million without having paid the money.”

Therefore, the amount of KRW 50 million that the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant is “loan”.

Next, I will examine the defendant's repayment amount.

The plaintiff has already recovered five million won, which is shown in the above evidence. However, the plaintiff asserts as "three million won" in relation to the amount of criminal agreement paid by the defendant for the plaintiff, while the defendant asserts as "three million won" in the above content certification, it was argued that the defendant paid "three million won" in the above content certification as the agreed amount.

Since there is a big difference in the amount between the two, and it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the argument of the party who prepared and paid the agreed amount is more correct, this part of the agreed amount is recognized as '3.4 million won.'

The unpaid loan amount is KRW 41.6 million (= KRW 50 million – KRW 5 million – KRW 3.4 million).

Damages for delay shall be payable to the Defendant.