1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 29,280,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 23, 2017 to November 14, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff lent KRW 61 million to the defendant, the plaintiff did not have been paid KRW 29,280,000 until now, the defendant should pay the above money and its delay damages to the plaintiff.

On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff asserts that the final unpaid amount is KRW 29,280,000.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including paper numbers) and the entirety of the arguments, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Defendant as to December 30, 201, KRW 15 million, and KRW 10 million on January 4, 201, the same month

5. The fact that KRW 35 million and KRW 61 million were paid to the Defendant on the 19th day of the same month, and the fact that the Defendant, from time to time, remitted money of KRW 100,000 to KRW 200,000,000,00 to the Plaintiff. In light of the payment form of the above money, it is reasonable to deem the above KRW 60,11 million as the loan.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff invested in the purchase of golf course membership, but the defendant's above assertion is not accepted because there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant can be recognized as having remitted totaling KRW 32,390,000 to the Plaintiff from January 19, 2011 to September 29, 2016. However, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff who paid KRW 31,820,000 among them and was appropriated for the principal.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of 29,280,000 won (=61,100,000 won - 31,820,000 won) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from January 23, 2017, the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint was served, to November 14, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition.