1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 15,000,000 from the Plaintiff on January 20, 2009, including the sum of KRW 10,000,000 around January 22, 2009 and KRW 5,00,000 around January 22, 2009, without an agreement between the parties to the interest and the due date, is not a dispute between the parties.

B. The plaintiff asserts that in addition to the above money, the sum of KRW 4,000,000 around April 16, 2004, KRW 3,000,000 around November 2, 2004, and KRW 14,000 around June 20, 2005, including KRW 7,000,000,00 around June 20, 2005, the plaintiff extended a return to the defendant. Although the defendant did not dispute the fact that the above money was paid, there is no evidence to prove that it was a loan, the above argument is without merit.

[Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff donated the above money under the name of living expenses, etc. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 15, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 20, 21, and witness D's testimony, the defendant started with and maintained an internal relationship with the plaintiff around December 2003, and began with the plaintiff at the time of January 2013, and the plaintiff tried to recover the relationship with the plaintiff on February 7, 2013, including where the plaintiff had a flag at the defendant's residence and had a me to know well, but did not respond to the defendant, and requested the return of the said money from that time. Thus, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant were related to the plaintiff and the time when the plaintiff paid each of the above money to the defendant (it can be seen as the beginning of an internal relationship).

(C) Considering the time when the return was first demanded, the above argument by the Defendant is not reliable.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense that constitutes Article 103 and Article 746 of the Civil Act is a juristic act with a content contrary to good customs and other social order since the above loans of KRW 15,00,000 are conditioned to maintain overlapping relations. Thus, it is not only null and void.