1. The part against the defendant regarding the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The above-mentioned part shall be applicable.

1. As to the primary cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent to the defendant the amount of KRW 20 million around 2006, and KRW 50 million on October 17, 2007 to the defendant at 2% per interest month.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 70 million won with the agreed interest rate of 24% per annum from April 13, 2013 to the date of full payment of the principal amounting to KRW 79.8 million with the interest accrued until April 12, 2013, KRW 9.8 million with the interest accrued from KRW 79.8 million, and KRW 70 million with the interest accrued from KRW 7.8 million with the agreed interest rate of KRW 24% per annum.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant only on the basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

2. As to the conjunctive cause of claim

A. The Defendant alleged on November 6, 2013 that he/she would pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million at the rate of 24% per annum, even if he/she disposes of the Defendant’s K Ga, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 70 million with interest rate of KRW 70 million and delay damages at the rate of 24% per annum from November 6, 2013 to the date of full payment.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff lent the Defendant’s husband D KRW 20 million around 2006, and KRW 50 million on October 17, 2007 to D. 2) The Defendant divorced on October 11, 2013.

3) On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into K located in Suwon-si F and 1st floor of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si on November 6, 2013, and recorded the conversation with the Defendant. The main content of the recording is as follows. The Plaintiff: (a) in the case of the Plaintiff: (b) is required to pay back the conversation as money at the home at present; (c) how is possible: (d) the Plaintiff extended the loan; and (e) the Defendant: (e) the first other people should not think of the intention.

h. Doing in good faith.

I cannot think.

However, the Republic of Korea, G, and H Chief (Plaintiff A), and the I President (J) will be able to release the money, regardless of whether there is any kind of money.

In fact, the inside of the three people were old, and the interests of the I President, and the I President were received from the original.

Therefore, we can see that we can see that we can see our life.

(C). (C).