1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 29, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the defendant on June 7, 2004, and received KRW 40 million from the defendant on June 8, 2006, and the plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 10 million to the defendant on September 11, 2007, plus the remainder of KRW 50 million (= KRW 50 million - KRW 40 million) to the defendant on September 5, 2007, additionally remitted KRW 10 million on October 5, 2007, and at the time, the defendant agreed to return the principal to the plaintiff on October 5, 2007.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as the principal 25 million won and the day after the date of claim for payment as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's request for return can not be immediately complied with, since the plaintiff's "D Project in Jeju where the land was owned by the defendant at the time was resumed," and if profits occur, the "D Project in Jeju where the land was owned by the defendant at the time," was invested in the amount of KRW 25 million under the principal preservation agreement.

As seen earlier, the Defendant agreed to return the principal amount of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff in the future. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant claim constitutes so-called “claim with Time Limit” and that the time limit has arrived at more than nine years after the date of remittance. As such, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.