1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from December 16, 2014 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 of Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, 6, 8, and 9 of Gap evidence as to the cause of the claim, the defendant borrowed KRW 35 million from D with the introduction of Eul around January and around February 2009, and the plaintiff paid the above borrowed amount on September 19, 201 between the plaintiff and the plaintiff when the defendant did not repay the borrowed amount, and the defendant paid the above borrowed amount on behalf of the defendant for the plaintiff at the time of September 19, 201, and the defendant concluded an agreement that the plaintiff paid interest of KRW 35 million on behalf of the plaintiff to the plaintiff and paid it in full without setting the due date for the principal, and upon the death of the plaintiff on September 20, 201, the plaintiff paid the above borrowed amount to the defendant's debt No. 3500, Jun. 5, 2012.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above 35 million won and delay damages on behalf of the plaintiff to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's argument that the defendant borrowed KRW 22 million from D through C, and repaid the full amount of the loan to C in the form of a claim against the defendant, and that the plaintiff paid KRW 5 million out of the loan borrowed from D and paid KRW 17 million to D, the defendant claimed that the above loan certificate does not become effective as stated on the ground that the defendant lent the remainder of KRW 17 million to D, and that the plaintiff lent the difference between KRW 35 million as stated in the loan certificate and KRW 17 million to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff did not pay the above KRW 17 million but did not lend the difference.

First, 22 million won was borrowed from D, and as such, 22 million won was borrowed.