1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 4, 2014 to November 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. On April 1, 2004, the plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 40,00,000 to the defendant on April 1, 2004. Thus, according to the evidence No. 2, the defendant prepared and issued a loan certificate indicating the loan amount of KRW 40,00,000 on the above date to the plaintiff (the defendant asserted that he did not state the amount and date in 2003, but according to the appraiser D's written appraisal, according to the appraiser D's written appraisal, the amount and date stated in the evidence No. 2 evidence No. 2 are recognized) and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff actually lent KRW 40,00,000 to the defendant on the above date, and the plaintiff cannot accept the loan certificate No. 2,000,000,000 won on the above date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff directly lent it to the defendant at the time of borrowing. However, the plaintiff's claim No. 24,000,0,000 won.

2. On August 21, 2004, the Plaintiff leased KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on August 21, 2004, because there is no dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 4, 2014 to November 25, 2015, which is the date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as the Plaintiff seeks against the Plaintiff, and as the Plaintiff seeks, it is evident that it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the instant payment order from September 4, 2014 to November 25, 2015.

Although the defendant asserts that all of the above loan amounts to KRW 3,000,000 is repaid, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion.