1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 29, 2014 to November 18, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim for loans inherited by the deceased C

A. On July 30, 2004, the Plaintiff’s assertion C (hereinafter “the deceased”) agreed to receive interest of KRW 35,000,000 per month from the Defendant and lent the amount of KRW 550,000 per month to the Defendant. After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff agreed on the division of inherited property for the Plaintiff to solely succeed to the Plaintiff’s claim for the loans of D and deceased. As such, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest from April 30, 2007.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the deceased withdrawn KRW 35,00,000 from the new bank on July 30, 2004, and the defendant remitted KRW 550,000 to the deceased on an irregular basis during the period from January 31, 2005 to May 14, 2007. However, each of the above facts of recognition and the statements in evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 10 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize that the deceased lent KRW 35,00 to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them (no loan certificate consistent with the plaintiff's assertion). The plaintiff's claim in this part is without merit.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3 and 5 as to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant on April 9, 2007 without an agreement on the interest and the due date for payment (as to the records No. 5 (Recording), it is recognized that the Defendant clearly made it clear that he was liable to pay KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff in telephone conversations with the Plaintiff on July 10, 2014). The Defendant from July 29, 2014 on the date following the record that the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case was made by the Plaintiff as sought by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation of this case by the Defendant from July 29, 2014 to November 18, 2015, which is the date of this decision.