1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 and its interest to the Plaintiff are 5% per annum from January 25, 2021 to March 11, 2021.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 83,00,000,000 to the Defendant on November 19, 201, and KRW 10,000,000 around December 201, and KRW 10,000 around January 6, 201, and KRW 30,000,000 on September 30, 201, respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “loan”) that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “as in its order”), does not conflict between the parties.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 73,00,000 (= KRW 10,000,000,000) and the delayed damages therefrom.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. 1) As to the instant loan No. 1, the Defendant determined on the defense of the objection, and the Defendant requested the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff around that time, after the first use of the instant loan No. 1, and the Plaintiff and his birth C purchased the land located in Sejong City and requested the Defendant to pay the Defendant.

One of the arguments, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above argument is without merit.

2) The Defendant’s judgment on the expired statute of limitations defense expired ten years after the expiration of the statute of limitations under the Civil Act regarding the claim for the loan No. 1 of the instant case.

The argument is asserted.

In this case, since there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff did not set the due date for the loan No. 1 of this case to the defendant, the statute of limitations for the extinguishment of the loan No. 1 of this case shall run from November 19, 2010, which is the date on which the claim is established.

The Plaintiff filed a claim only for the loan Nos. 2 through 4 of the instant case, and submitted an application for amendment to the purport of the claim on January 25, 2021, it is evident that the Plaintiff added the loan No. 1 to the instant claim.

Therefore, since the claim No. 1 of this case had already ceased to exist before applying for change of the above claim, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. Loans Nos. 3 and 4 of this case