Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 3,172,911 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from October 6, 2015 to September 9, 2016.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff appears to be the Defendant’s obvious clerical error in the “No. 31, 2007, April 30, 2007,” which stated the due date for repayment of the loan (Evidence No. 1) on April 30, 207, as the due date for repayment of the loan (Evidence No. 1) appears to be the Defendant.

on May 25, 2010, 8 million won was leased, and on May 25, 2010, 1 million won was not determined.

(hereinafter below, each of the above loans is "each of the loans of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] A does not dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not conclude a separate interest agreement on each of the instant loans, and paid a total of KRW 8,250,000 from December 5, 2006 to March 26, 2014, the Defendant asserted that only KRW 1,707,210 remains as of March 26, 2014.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that since the interest rate of 30% per annum was agreed on each of the loans of this case and the amount repaid by the defendant was fully appropriated for the repayment of interest accrued in the past, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the loans of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The existence and content of interest agreement is as follows: (a) the facts as seen earlier and the statement in Gap evidence 3, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings; (b) the defendant, on May 10, 2010, prepared and delivered a letter (Evidence 3) stating that "I, on the premise of the existence of an interest agreement on loans made by the plaintiff on October 6, 2006, the interest agreement on each of the instant loans will be paid in full by May 31, 2010; and (c) lending money without interest agreement in general transaction circumstances is extremely exceptional. In light of the above, the agreement on each of the instant loans exists.

B. Furthermore, even though the Defendant did not have arrived at the maturity date of the loan on October 6, 2006, the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff before the maturity date.