1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,040,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 18, 2018 to May 3, 2019.

The facts that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 37,300,000 to the Defendant from July 4, 2017 to February 8, 2018 without fixing the due date for payment without interest agreement do not conflict between the parties, and the fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, including the purport of demanding the repayment of the above loan, was served on the Defendant on December 17, 2018, is clearly indicated in the record.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 35,600,000 won and damages for delay after deducting the remaining amount of KRW 1,700,000 that the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, the defendant raises a defense to the effect that he paid a total of KRW 12,260,000 to the plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 12,260,000 won in total to the Plaintiff from September 18, 2017 to December 5, 2018, the Defendant’s defense of performance is with merit.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the remaining KRW 10,560,000, except for the loan of this case, which was paid by the plaintiff among the above KRW 12,260,000, is not a repayment for the loan of this case, but a payment for the card of this case was made by the defendant after using the plaintiff's credit card, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the payment by only the items of the evidence No. 2 (including the virtual number). However, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it differently, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25,040,000 won (=37,300,000 won - 12,260,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from December 18, 2018, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the defendant, until May 3, 2019, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation.

The plaintiff's claim.