1. The counterclaim Defendant: 33,700,000 won to the counterclaim and 5% per annum from September 1, 2017 to February 21, 2018.

1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 of the facts based on the facts and the entire pleadings, the Counterclaim Plaintiff may lend KRW 3,700,000 to the Counterclaim Defendant on May 15, 2015, and KRW 3,700,000, and KRW 30,000 on May 26, 2015, respectively, under the pretext of expenses for the registration of transfer of land C in Yangsan-si, and there is no counter-proof.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the counterclaim Defendant is obliged to return to the counterclaim totaling KRW 33,700,000,000.

Therefore, since the Lessee notified the return of the above loan at the latest, the period of repayment of the above loan claim has arrived on the delivery date of the copy of the counterclaim of this case, which is after a considerable period of time has elapsed.

As such, the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to pay to the counterclaim the amount of KRW 33,700,00 and the following day after the due date for payment, namely, from September 1, 2017, the following day after the delivery of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, to the extent of existence and scope of the counterclaim Defendant’s duty to pay damages calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. In addition to the above loans, the Counterclaim Plaintiff asserts that the Counterclaim Defendant lent each of the above loans of KRW 45,00,000,000 to the Counterclaim Defendant on April 2, 2014, KRW 22,450,000 on May 21, 2014, and KRW 1,660,000 on April 21, 2015, and KRW 5,960,00 on May 4, 2015, each of the above loans was claimed against the Counterclaim Defendant for the return of the said amount, and thus, each of the above loans was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that each of the above loans was paid by the Counterclaim Defendant to the Counterclaim Defendant on the condition that the Counterclaim Defendant agreed to return the loans, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claim for this portion of the loans is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition, so it is so decided as per Disposition.