1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,750,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 26, 2017 to July 11, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant KRW 10 million on March 21, 2013, KRW 5 million on the 26th of the same month, and KRW 15 million on the 15 million on the 26th of the same month (hereinafter “loan 1”).

On the other hand, the Defendant repaid the sum of KRW 1,425,00 (hereinafter “first repayment”) from May 2013 to December 2016.

B. The Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on February 14, 2014, and KRW 10 million on April 16, 2014, and KRW 20 million on a total amount of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “second lending”).

On October 2014, the defendant repaid the amount of KRW 15 million.

C. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6 million to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1-1 to 1-1 to 17, 6, evidence 7-1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The interest rate for the first loan claiming the Plaintiff’s interest agreement is 24% per annum and the due date is December 30, 2016, and the first loan is interest for the first loan.

Therefore, since the principal of the first loan has not yet been repaid, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26 million (i.e., KRW 20 million for the second loan - KRW 15 million for the repayment of KRW 15 million - KRW 15 million for the loan as of May 27, 2015) and damages for delay from the day following the delivery of the written complaint.

B. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff alleged that the interest on the first loan was 18% per annum in the instant complaint, and there is no consistency in the legal brief as of March 10, 2017, such as the assertion of 24% per annum, and there is no document of disposition, such as a loan certificate verifying that the interest on the first loan and the repayment period agreement have been reached, it is insufficient to acknowledge that each of the entries in the evidence No. 2 and No. 5 (including the provisional number) are with respect to the first loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is an interest and the payment period agreement on the first loan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

C. According to the above facts, the defendant's loan balance 11,750.