1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 1,00,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from July 30, 2015 to September 21, 2016.

1. The Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 27,00,000 in total to the Defendant on December 14, 2010 and KRW 27,000,000 in total on December 5, 2011 to the Defendant is without dispute between the parties. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,00,000 on July 1, 10, 201, and KRW 17,000 in total from the Defendant on December 22, 2011.

The defendant set up a defense that he paid the remainder of KRW 10,00,000 in full, and that the defendant paid KRW 4,000,000 on June 29, 2012 and KRW 5,000,000 on December 24, 2012, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1-2 of the evidence in subparagraph 1-2 of this Article, it may be recognized that the defendant paid the remainder of KRW 1,00,000 by means of the account in C (the mother of the defendant) and D (the spouse of the plaintiff) and by means of the account in the whole. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 1,00,000 (=27,000,000 - 10,000 - 7,000,000 - 4,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 5,0000 after the due date as requested by the Plaintiff as a result of the delivery of the instant complaint from July 30, 2015 to September 21, 2016, the Defendant’s objection as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, which is the date of the final judgment of the competent court, from September 21, 2016 to September 21, 2016, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.