1. The Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 31, 2007 to October 16, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on August 23, 2007, and the same year

9. The fact that a sum of KRW 150 million has been remitted to the Defendant account is without dispute between the parties concerned.

The Plaintiff alleged that the said money was paid interest at a rate of 5% per annum from October 2007, and the Defendant asserted that the said money was paid KRW 281 million by having the Plaintiff’s spouse, C (after the name of the Plaintiff, D) and C (after the birth of the child), and that it was merely a part of the money paid by C.

The evidence No. 1-1, in which the plaintiff asserts the authenticity, cannot be deemed to have been forged as the original even if the name, resident registration number, and seal portion were stated or prepared by the plaintiff's own statement, and even according to the result of the appraisal commission made by this court against appraiser E. According to the above statement, it cannot be deemed to have been forged as the original copy even if it was based on the result of the appraisal entrustment made by this court against appraiser E. As such, it constitutes a disposition document prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, even if there was a separate monetary transaction between the defendant and the defendant and the defendant, even if there was a separate monetary transaction between the defendant and the defendant, it cannot be interpreted differently from the entry in the above document. Thus, the above money shall be deemed to have been borrowed as the borrowed money as alleged by the plaintiff, and no evidence exists to deem that the payment of the above money is merely a payment of the trade

(1) After the conclusion of the pleadings, the Defendant submitted the data on the loans for investment between C and Ama, and filed an application for resumption of the pleadings, but the date on which the application was filed, cannot be deemed to have any reason to resume the pleadings as the date of remittance of each of the above accounts. Therefore, the Defendant may not be deemed to have any reason to resume the pleadings to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, as sought by the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from October 31, 2007 to October 16, 2013, the date on which the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served, as sought by the Plaintiff.