The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 502,412,909 and KRW 436,00,000 among them, from December 5, 2013 to the full payment day.

1. On March 9, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned 436,000,000 won to the Defendant as part of the part payment in Busan apartment as part of the part payment in Busan apartment as of August 18, 2012, at the interest rate of 5.5%, and damages for delay rate of 14.5%.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant, upon delinquency in paying interest on the instant loan, lost a benefit by June 13, 2012, and the balance of the principal and interest of the instant loan was KRW 520,412,909 as of October 17, 2013 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 436,00,000 and delay damages amount of KRW 84,412,909).

(C) Facts that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings). The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 5, 2013, following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that the loan of this case was wholly appropriated for the construction cost of the above apartment as the intermediate payment loan of Gangseo-gu Busan apartment complex B, and since Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. was jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the above apartment, the above Si Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. is substantially responsible for repaying the debt of this case, and the defendant filed a lawsuit against Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. seeking the return of down payment, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the repayment of the loan of this case against

However, in this case where a claim based on legal relations surrounding a contract for sale in lots cannot be a valid defense in principle, and the circumstances alleged by the defendant are not affected by the validity of the loan of this case. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.