The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 44,488,00 as well as 5% per annum from June 23, 2020 to January 26, 2021.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 20,200,000 on April 14, 200, KRW 10,400 on June 28, 2005, KRW 13,58,700 on August 26, 2005, KRW 50,000 on October 29, 2005, and KRW 50,000 on March 27, 2012.

B. On January 17, 2019, the Defendant prepared and transmitted to the Plaintiff the following Kakao Stockholm:

A The sum of August 26, 200,000, August 26, 2000, 2000 to KRW 13,58,000 in marriage: 53,98,00 [The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delayed damages from the following day after the last payment day of the loan amounting to KRW 53,988,000 as stated in the above detailed statement.

B. Defendant 1) The amount of the loan is KRW 45,188,700, the deposit of which is confirmed.

2) The Defendant paid 39,500,000 won to the Plaintiff, and thus, the remainder is KRW 5,688,700.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence (a) No. 7 of the Defendant’s written loan amount, the Defendant confirmed that the amount borrowed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was 53,988,000 won. Thus, the amount of the loan is recognized as KRW 53,98,000.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of repayment 1) The Defendant’s deposit to the Plaintiff is as follows.

On April 24, 2004, the plaintiff's position as to whether or not the amount of payment has been changed in the amount of KRW 7,000,000 on August 25, 2006, recognizing the repayment of KRW 7,000 on August 25, 2006, and recognizing the repayment of KRW 500,000 on August 27, 2012, 2012, 10,000 in cash on August 27, 2012 and delivered KRW 60,00 to the defendant with the intention to pay KRW 50,000 on March 27, 2012, there is no evidence that the defendant again delivered the above money to the defendant, and even according to the plaintiff's argument, the above 500,000 won was not a separate ground for loan, and thus, the defendant's assertion was not received.