1. As to KRW 152,00,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 40,000 among them, the Defendant shall from April 9, 2016 to January 11, 2017.

1. The Plaintiff, as the head of the Tong in the name of the Defendant, remitted the total of KRW 12,00,000 to KRW 5 million on January 27, 2014, KRW 70,000 on the 111st of the same month, KRW 2 million on the 25th day, KRW 10,000 on the 28th day, and KRW 112,00,000 on March 4, 2014.

(2) On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s reference C set the rate of KRW 50 million to the Defendant as 1% per month.

C The heir died on April 18, 2015, and on October 10, 2015, the heir made an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the above loan claim is owned solely by the plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions (including paper numbers) in Gap 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 112,00,000 to the Defendant regarding the loan claim, and the Defendant asserts that it is merely a monetary transaction in the process of settling the construction price.

Although there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money between themselves, while the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving money is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan for consumption if the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption.

According to the evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) adopted earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the reason for transferring the above money is a loan agreement for consumption, taking into account the following: (a) the entry “B” as “loan”; (b) the Defendant did not raise any particular objection to the above mentioned contents prior to the instant lawsuit; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the above transactions have been continuously made between the Plaintiff, the broker of real estate and construction works, and the Defendant, the owner of the building, during the settlement of the construction cost.

B. On the other hand, according to the entry of Eul 1-1-5, the defendant paid KRW 10 million to the deceased's heir D (the plaintiff's heir) five times from August 25, 2015 to five times in order to repay the borrowed amount.