1. The Defendant’s KRW 30 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from July 21, 2016 to July 20, 2017.

1. Determination as to the claim for a loan of KRW 30 million on March 7, 2013

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the defendant, who had operated the gas station in the name of "D gas station" in the Jeonnam-gun, Bosung-gun, Nam on March 7, 2013, lent KRW 30 million as a security deposit for the purchase of duty-free oil to the defendant, who has embezzled from F, the defendant's mother, remitted KRW 370 million as a refund of KRW 370,000,000,000,000, which was embezzled from F. However, it is insufficient to recognize this merely by means of the statements Nos. 5 through 13 (including the serial number).

On February 12, 2016, the fact that the Defendant requested the return of the above loan can be acknowledged.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 30 million and the damages for delay incurred from July 21, 2016, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant alleged that a partnership obligation is a partnership obligation has operated a Driju in the same partnership with E that is the birthee, and leased KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff for the operation of the above gas station, and the above loan obligation is a partnership obligation and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim that all union members should file a lawsuit against each union member. The obligee of the union does not hold joint liability with union property, but exercises the pertinent claim based on the individual responsibility of each union member. If the partnership obligation is, inter alia, borne by all union members due to the act of commercial activity, a joint liability should be determined by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to each union member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da30705, Nov. 22, 191). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that the obligation constitutes a partnership obligation, as alleged by the Defendant, even if it falls under the Defendant’s claim.