1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,300,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 2, 2014 to June 29, 2016.

In light of the facts without dispute between the parties and the purport of the entire arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, upon the defendant's request, the plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 6.5 million on Sep. 13, 2006, KRW 10 million on Nov. 10, 2006, KRW 500,000 on Nov. 27, 2006, KRW 300,00 on Dec. 3, 2006, KRW 50,000 on Dec. 9, 2006, KRW 50,000 on Dec. 14, 2006, and KRW 6.8 million on Mar. 16, 2007 to the defendant's account of the defendant's father, and thus, the plaintiff loaned the remainder of the loan and delay damages to the plaintiff without fixing the period of repayment or interest to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, on June 17, 2005, the Plaintiff leased KRW 10 million to the Defendant by means of directly paying KRW 10 million upon request of the Defendant that he borrowed KRW 1,00,000 from D in order to repay money. ② From October 12, 2006 to February 12, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,738,040 as business funds to the Defendant; ③ around December 22, 2006, at the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 2,357,520 as loans, and the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 30,000 in cash, including KRW 2,357,520,000, KRW 378,000 as 30,000,000 by means of direct payment of repair expenses. However, on February 28, 2007.

On the other hand, in the case of a loan for consumption for which the time of return is not fixed, the lender is reasonable in accordance with Article 603 (2) of the Civil Code.