1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 5, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on August 5, 2010 to the Plaintiff and provided loans on November 4, 2010, but did not pay the said money up to now. As such, the Plaintiff sought the return of the said money.

2. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 5, 2018 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, from February 5, 2018 to the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not have any counter-proof evidence following the judgment mentioned earlier, stating that “the money actually leased is merely KRW 10 million, unlike the language and text of the above notarial deed.”

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the gist of the assertion, the Defendant was proceeding with a third party in a separate construction cost lien lawsuit, but an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the said loan should be repaid on the condition that he/she won the lawsuit.

B. Determination 1) Comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that there has been an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the conditions as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit. Meanwhile, the Defendant appears to have asserted that “the Plaintiff was conducting a civil lawsuit with Nonparty C around April 2010, but the Defendant, upon which the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the Defendant, paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant if he had the intention to reach an agreement. However, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant because the Defendant had already formed the above agreement.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff ought to pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant. In full view of all all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant is worth KRW 10 million.