1. The defendant shall pay 29,400,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Facts of recognition

On March 18, 2013, the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on March 27, 2021 (Provided, That the repayment of KRW 5 million per year) and the agreed rate of KRW 40,00 per annum (40,000 per annum in three months).

From June 30, 2013 to December 28, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 4,400,000,000 to the Deceased on 111 occasions.

The Deceased died on February 25, 2016, and the Plaintiff inherited the deceased’s property solely.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

Judgment

According to the facts found above, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 (the defendant agreed to pay KRW 5,000,000 per annum, and about five years and seven months have passed since the date of the loan as of October 30, 2018, which is the date of the closing of the argument in this case, the period of repayment of KRW 25,00,000, which is the repayment agreement for five years, shall be deemed to have arrived) and the agreed party whose maturity has arrived at KRW 4,40,00 (=three-month agreement for KRW 400,000 x 33 months x (33 months / three months) as of December 19, 2015).

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay the agreed interest from December 19, 2015 and lost the benefit of the entire borrowed principal. However, as seen earlier, the agreed repayment of the borrowed principal was made on March 27, 2021, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was made on the ground of the Defendant’s loss of the interest due to the delay in payment of the agreed interest. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot seek payment of the borrowed principal without the due date. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant exempted the deceased from the obligation to pay interest, but the letter (Evidence B No. 1) presented as evidence was merely the Defendant unilaterally sent to the deceased, and it is difficult to acknowledge the fact of exemption from interest solely on the basis of the evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.