1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 11, 2016 to July 13, 2017.

1. Determination as to KRW 7 million remitted in 2010

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 7 million to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account on April 17, 2010 is no dispute between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loans of KRW 7 million and the damages for delay.

2. Determination on the KRW 100 million remitted in 2006

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Defendant, one of his omission, borrowed money to the Defendant for business operation in the Philippines, and transferred the sum of KRW 100 million to the above accounts in the name of C, D, E, and F, which the Defendant informed on November 21, 2016, and thus, the Defendant should return the above loans KRW 100 million.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 100 million invested in the defendant's son who operated his business in the Philippines, and that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because it is not a money lent to the defendant.

B. According to each description of the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4 of the judgment, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account of A, etc. on November 21, 2016 is recognized.

Furthermore, we examine whether the above money is money lent to the defendant.

Of KRW 100 million that the Plaintiff had lent, no money was deposited directly into the Defendant’s account and all of the money was deposited into C or a third party’s account; C cannot be ruled out that the Plaintiff was able to lend or invest money to C due to the relationship in which the Plaintiff was promoting the housing development and fishing school-related business in the Philippines; and the “Account Number camera” (No. 1) that the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff was issued from the Defendant stated the account number C, D, G, and H; while the account that the Plaintiff actually transferred money is different from the account of C, D, E, and F, the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s money.