The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant is about USD 64,00 in US currency and about it from September 5, 2019 to the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserted that (1) from around 2001 to around 2005, when the plaintiff resided in the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S."), the plaintiff lent 70,000 U.S. dollars to the defendant in cash in the following manner. On July 6, 2016, the defendant paid 6,000 US dollars to the defendant's wife C, and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining 64,000 US dollars and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

① At the time when the Defendant visited the United States, the Defendant lent USD 20,00 to the Defendant.

② At the time of entry into Korea by D, E, and F residing in the United States, a loan was made by delivering USD 50,000 ($ 10,000 once each time) to the Defendant via them.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that there is no fact that 70,000 dollars were borrowed from the Plaintiff.

2. (1) According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and all of the arguments, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff lent USD 70,000 to the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff.

In particular, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff had the money to be repaid to the Plaintiff on or around March 20, 2019, and did not raise any objection even though the Plaintiff stated that the loan was USD 70,000. (2) Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of USD 64,00,000, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, from September 5, 2019 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal.