1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,500,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 4, 2016 to January 24, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. From the time of birth to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was brought up to the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant was the outer third village of the Plaintiff.

B. (1) From February 2005 to April 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 per month in the name of the Defendant, and around April 12, 2007, upon cancelling the above installment savings, paid KRW 13.5 million to the Defendant.

(2) The Plaintiff remitted each of the Defendant, KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million on September 2, 2009, KRW 10 million on July 10, 2012, and KRW 5 million on February 16, 2015, respectively, to the Defendant, and the Defendant returned KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff.

Grounds for recognition: Gap 1, 2, 4, and the whole purport of the pleading.

2. In light of the following factors: (a) the Plaintiff’s relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the method and amount of the Plaintiff’s payment of money to the Defendant; (b) it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 38.5 million in total to the Defendant by paying and remitting KRW 13.5 million on April 12, 2007, KRW 10 million on September 2, 2009, KRW 10 million on July 10, 2012, KRW 10 million on July 16, 2012, and KRW 5 million on February 16, 2015.

The defendant merely borrowed KRW 5 million from the plaintiff on February 16, 2015, and each KRW 10 million received on September 2, 2009 and July 10, 2012, respectively, was a donation to the defendant in return for the support during that period, and KRW 500,000 won received from February 2, 2005 to July 2007 was paid to the defendant as the cost of the plaintiff's living. However, although the statement in Eul evidence 2 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's allegation, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who lent the above KRW 38.5 million to the defendant without setting the interest and the due date. Thus, the due date shall expire from the delivery date of the complaint of this case for which the plaintiff sought the payment of the above money to the defendant.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 35 million won, deducting 3 million won that the defendant already repaid at KRW 38.5 million, and the defendant's appeal as to the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation from July 4, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, is reasonable.