1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2.5 million and the interest rate of KRW 20 million per annum from May 25, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff asserted that on March 8, 2007, the plaintiff did not pay the defendant the amount of KRW 22.5 million to the defendant after the second month of the due date. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 22.5 million and the damages for delay.

It is acknowledged that the Defendant received KRW 2,50,000 from the Plaintiff, but the Defendant and the Plaintiff asserted that, upon introduction of Nonparty C (the “D,” hereinafter referred to as “D”), the Defendant jointly purchased the E Apartment-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, 103, and 1402, and agreed to profit from the sale (hereinafter “instant sale right”) and jointly purchased the instant sale right at KRW 22,50,000,000,000 received from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not borrow KRW 22,50,000 from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the amount of KRW 22.5 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on March 8, 2007 is a loan or an investment amount.

2. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole by adding up the whole purport of pleadings to the statement in the judgment of the case, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, to the head of the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office of Ulsan District Court's Office of this Court, the witness F's testimony, and witness witness D's testimony, i.e., ① if the plaintiff made an investment, the plaintiff's own transfer of money to Eul, not to the defendant, but to the plaintiff himself, but to the defendant, but to the defendant again, the plaintiff again remitted money to D, ② is in a pro rata relationship with the defendant, ② is deemed to have no pro rata relationship with the plaintiff, and ③ is believed to have been aware that the plaintiff made an investment in the sale right of this case jointly with the defendant, but all of them were believed to have been transferred to the plaintiff, and the defendant did not explain to the plaintiff about the purchase of the sale right of this case, ④ on March 9, 2007.