1. The judgment of the court of first instance on the counterclaim shall be revoked, and the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim shall be dismissed;

2...

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the facts that the plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on April 21, 2004, and the court determined that the defendant would receive deposit money and simultaneously receive it (hereinafter referred to as the "loan of this case"). The fact that the defendant received deposit around May 2004 does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. In accordance with the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,000,000 for the instant loan and the damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, which is the date when the Defendant rendered a judgment in the first instance, which is a substantial decision to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

B. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant alleged that there was no fact that he borrowed KRW 10,00,000 from the plaintiff. However, according to the statement in Gap's evidence No. 1, the defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 10,00,000 from the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant would receive the deposit at his own expense, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that both the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, and the Defendant, the Defendant, and other siblings, except the Defendant, sold the amount of KRW 111 square meters (hereinafter the inherited property of this case), which is the parent’s inherited property, to KRW 134 million on April 26, 2004, and the Defendant did not receive the amount of KRW 6/165,00,000,000, which is the Defendant’s share, but did not receive it, so there is no obligation to comply with the Plaintiff’s above claim.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the circumstances alleged by the defendant, and the above alone does not extinguish the debt of the loan of this case.