1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim added at the trial.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is 10% interest per month, and the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 85 million to the Defendant from August 12, 2015 to November 3, 2015. From September 2, 2015 to December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 10 million from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of KRW 75 million to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 85 million to the Defendant, including KRW 30 million on August 12, 2015, KRW 30 million on September 17, 2015, and KRW 25 million on November 3, 2015, does not conflict between the parties.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the fact that the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a loan under a monetary loan agreement shall be proved by the Plaintiff. In full view of the absence of dispute between the parties or by the entire purport of the statement and pleading as set forth in subparagraph 1, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

(1) No objective material exists to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, such as a loan certificate.

The plaintiff was first aware of the defendant who is engaged in the business of investment in stocks through the introduction of E around August 2015, and the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the above amount was used for stock investment.

[Plaintiff stated in the application for the payment order dated August 23, 2016 that “the Plaintiff shall have been in charge of KRW 85 million in the form of shares”]. In light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the background leading up to the Plaintiff’s contact with the Defendant, the Defendant’s occupation, and the place of use of the above money, etc., it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff lent KRW 85 million to the Defendant without obtaining documents, such as a certificate of borrowing.

x) Otherwise, the Defendant paid the interest of the 120% annual high rate.