1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,898,800 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 19, 2013 to February 8, 2017, and the following.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of claim and the defense for performance, and the defendant of Gap evidence No. 1 denies the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1 on November 2, 2016 on the second day, but asserts to the effect that only the portion of the seal is recognized in the briefs dated December 6, 2016. However, even if only the portion of the seal is recognized, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established.

If the purport of the entire pleading is added to the statement, the Plaintiff may recognize that on March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 28,600,000 to the Defendant on March 18, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

As to this, the defendant set up a defense that he paid KRW 2,901,200 to the plaintiff. According to the facts in the Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant deducted KRW 2,701,200 from the sum of the amounts remitted to C by the defendant 2,901,200 to December 5, 2012.

It can be recognized that the payment was made by means of remitting the Plaintiff’s husband to C.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.

2. Conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 25,898,800 won (28,600,000 won-2,701,200 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from March 19, 2013, which is the date the Defendant rendered this judgment, until February 8, 2017, which is the date when the said judgment is rendered, to the Plaintiff, to the extent of the existence and scope of the obligation.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.