1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Determination A1 (the establishment of the entire document is presumed to be presumed to have been completed on the ground that there is no dispute over the part of the Defendant’s signature) as to the cause of the claim. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, comprehensively taking into account: (a) the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 23 million to the Defendant on June 19, 2014 (hereinafter “the first lending”), and KRW 25 million on June 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the second lending”), and the lender in a loan for consumption with no time agreed for the repayment; (b) the lender shall notify the borrower of the return of the loan by setting a reasonable period from the next day to the date when the repayment period expired (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act); and (c) the borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when the repayment period of the loan was due to the lapse of a considerable period of time from 200% to 201.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the above loans KRW 27.3 million and the damages for delay from September 27, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to the defense of performance

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant repaid KRW 2.3 million out of the instant loan to the Plaintiff on April 29, 2015, and that the Plaintiff received the said KRW 2.3 million from the Defendant. However, the said KRW 2.3 million from the instant loan to the Defendant.