1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation shall be dismissed;

2...

Basic Facts

On March 29, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff over several times from around 1994 to February 2008, and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan against the Plaintiff.

(In relation to the foregoing, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a defense that he/she made a large number of monetary transactions with the Defendant, such as borrowed money and borrowed money. However, at that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a defense that he/she made an excessive repayment without any remainder of the repayment to the Defendant.

In the previous suit, the plaintiff's defense was accepted and the decision was rendered on May 3, 2013 to dismiss the defendant's claim entirely, which became final and conclusive on May 25, 2013.

(C) The judgment of the Plaintiff’s prior suit was accepted by the Plaintiff around 1994 that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not have borrowed such money.

If the claim and obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are settled again on the premise that the above loan did not exist, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant more than KRW 216,688,164, as indicated in the column of “the details of debt burden” in the attached Table 1 “the statement of transaction in the Plaintiff’s assertion”. Even if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,00,000 for household affairs, it was revealed in the previous suit that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 1,165,347,00 from September 1994 to June 201, 200, as described in paragraph (5) as indicated in the attached Table 2 “the statement of transaction in the Plaintiff’s claim”.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to return to the plaintiff at least 216,68,00 won or at least 40,652,000 won and damages for delay.

Judgment

The judgment of the court of first instance held that the repayment of KRW 216,68,00 is groundless, and it only received KRW 40,652,00 among them and damages for delay.

Accordingly, the plaintiff did not appeal but appealed only by the defendant, and 40,652,00 won and damages for delay in the following.