1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the defendant on July 18, 2013 without interest agreement and on August 18, 2013. The defendant repaid KRW 2 million out of the above KRW 10 million to the defendant, and the defendant assaulted the plaintiff on February 7, 2014 and suffered double account by the plaintiff.

First of all, according to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 8 million won of the remainder of the loan and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from August 19, 2013 to September 2, 2015, which is the date when the court rendered a reasonable judgment, to dispute the scope of the defendant's obligation to repay, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 3, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Next, according to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to violence committed on February 7, 2014, and considering various circumstances, it is reasonable that the amount of consolation money the defendant is liable to compensate for is KRW 20,000,000.

Therefore, from February 7, 2014, which is the date of the above illegal act, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum under the Civil Act until September 2, 2015, which is the date of the final judgment of the court of first instance, and the next day from September 3, 2015 to the date of full payment, damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the above illegal act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part ordering payment exceeding the above recognition scope in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.