1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 15 million to the Defendant who requested financing required for acquiring a corporation on or before the date of the claim. The Defendant shall be obligated to pay KRW 15 million to the Defendant the loan amount, KRW 15 million on July 3, 2016, KRW 15 million on the loan deposit, KRW 15 million on the maturity date, and KRW 15 million on July 3, 2016, and KRW 16 on June 16, 2016, respectively. The Defendant shall be obligated to pay the Plaintiff delay damages calculated on or after the day following the instant complaint’s delivery date by the day on which the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement, unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of all arguments as stated in the Evidence No. 1, 3, 2, 3, 6, and 7 (including each number). Thus, the Defendant shall be obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15 million on the day following the instant complaint’s delivery date.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that a set-off against the right to demand reimbursement of the expenses for delegated affairs is set off against the equivalent amount of the expenses, since the expenses equivalent to KRW 16 million were paid in the process of the collection by the plaintiff upon the plaintiff's request, the defendant asserts that a set-off against the claims for reimbursement of expenses for delegated affairs is set off against the plaintiff's obligation of KRW 15 million.

In full view of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence and evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul No. 4, 5, 8, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings, when the plaintiff was detained due to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, etc. and was tried on January 2, 2017, the plaintiff requested D (the actual operator of the above company) to recover the defaulted check. On the other hand, the defendant requested the recovery of the defaulted check from Eul who was in de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff and requested the recovery of the defaulted check, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff is the plaintiff and the defendant is the subject who requested the recovery of the defaulted check, and based on the notice of the reason for non-prosecution (Evidence No. 7-1).