1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2017 to January 21, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 10 million on April 14, 2014, KRW 30 million on April 15, 2014, KRW 40 million on April 18, 2014, KRW 30 million on April 21, 2014, KRW 3 million on April 21, 2014, KRW 16 million on April 28, 2014, KRW 300,000 on April 30, 2014, and KRW 18 million on May 8, 2014, respectively.

B. On the contrary, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million on January 22, 2016, KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million on April 1, 2016, KRW 30 million on April 20, 2016, and KRW 50 million on December 15, 2016.

C. From December 2016, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to repay the remainder of KRW 53 million (i.e., KRW 180 million - KRW 55 million) that was not paid from the Defendant through text messages, etc., on several occasions, from the time when the Plaintiff was on the part of the Defendant during December 2016, but did not receive additional money from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the fact that the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 18 million to the Defendant from April 14, 2014 to May 8, 2014, but was paid KRW 50 million from the Defendant up to the present day.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 53 million (i.e., KRW 18 million - KRW 55 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from December 5, 2016 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not lend money to the defendant, although he did not make an investment in his business with his own clothes.

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff and the Defendant considered losses in the course of operating clothes and did not have any more principal of investment, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Plaintiff money.

3. Issues and judgments here.