1. As to KRW 44,00,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 34,00,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from September 4, 2012 to May 11, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned to the Defendant the sum of KRW 100 million up to June 16, 201 by setting the maturity of KRW 12% per annum on July 1, 2012 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum; ② on September 5, 2011, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant on September 5, 2011; ③ on April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million without interest and maturity agreement, and there is no counter-proof.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is a person who received the principal amounting to KRW 81 million and interest from September 3, 2012 with respect to the loans as above (1) and (2).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 44 million won in unpaid loans (i.e., the above (i., ② the total amount of 125 million won - 81 million won), and (ii) with respect to the remainder of 34 million won in borrowed loans, 12% per annum under the agreement from September 4, 2012, the day following the date on which the last payment was made to May 11, 2015, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment; and (iii) with respect to the remainder of 10 million won in borrowed loans, 15% per annum calculated from May 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that: (a) the above (3) KRW 10 million was not the money borrowed from the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant, around June 2012, was the consulting fee received by the Plaintiff, who arranged a lease agreement on part of the building located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, between the Plaintiff and Nonparty C and one other.

According to the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, even though it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, etc. that was known through the Defendant around September 2012, the Plaintiff entered into between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to the lease agreement, the consulting agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant.

or the plaintiff.