1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 18, 2014 to June 9, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff loaned the defendant the amount of KRW 10 million on March 17, 2009 as the defendant's lease deposit to the defendant on March 17, 2010, and the plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 17 million on May 4, 2009 as the due date for repayment on May 4, 2010.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 27 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

The defendant's assertion, etc. is asserted to the effect that the defendant paid to the plaintiff KRW 20 million on March 31, 2010, and KRW 10 million on May 19, 2010, thereby repaying all of the loans of this case.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, even though the defendant paid to the plaintiff KRW 20 million on March 31, 2010, and KRW 10 million on May 19, 2010, the defendant is recognized to have paid the plaintiff KRW 20 million on May 19, 2010, and on the other hand, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the plaintiff paid to the defendant on April 7, 2009, and the same month.

8. It is recognized that 1.6 million won, 2.2 million won for the same month, 11.1 million won for the same month, and 1.9 million won for the 14.4 million won for the same month, and that 1.9.8 million won for the payment on May 20, 2010.

The Plaintiff asserts that the said money paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is the cause of repayment for the said money paid to the Defendant, and the Defendant also set forth below.

The Plaintiff stated that the said money transaction was similar to the Plaintiff by asserting otherwise the defense of payment, such as the statement in the claim.

(See the legal brief dated June 3, 2014). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the said money claimed by the Defendant was appropriated for the repayment of the said loan, as alleged by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da14448, Jun. 3, 2014). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the said money was appropriated for the repayment

The defendant, on May 4, 2009, paid KRW 10 million to the plaintiff on May 4, 2009, and paid KRW 10 million to the plaintiff on March 17, 2009.

Pleadings are made in the entry of Gap evidence 12.