1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The fact of recognition that the defendant entered the defendant's children through the plaintiff who operates the study institute into the Chinese D School, but the plaintiff first paid school expenses and agreed to pay them to the defendant or the defendant's spouse E, who is the parent of C, to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to the foregoing agreement, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 10,592,979 to the Chinese D School as school expenses of C. The Defendant and E paid KRW 4,404,000,000 to the Plaintiff, including KRW 1,000,000,000 on October 4, 2012, KRW 1,000,000 on October 5, 2012, KRW 504,000 on October 31, 2012, and KRW 1,90,000 on January 20, 2013.

On January 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) visited E, who was living far away from the Philippines at the time, got close with C’s school expenses; (b) sought one million won as the office of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute; and (c) on the same day, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate for KRW 4,364,150 out of the remainder that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”); and (d) granted it to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's 1, 3, 6 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum from February 21, 2013 to August 8, 2017, which is clearly indicated that it is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that E borrowed KRW 2.5 million from E-gu F and paid it to the plaintiff as C's school expenses, but the defendant did not know it and made it as stated in C's loan certificate. Thus, the defendant did not have a duty to repay 2.5 million won out of the loan certificate of this case.

B. However, if any.