1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 29, 2016 to June 24, 2016.

According to the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-2 and Eul evidence 1-2, each of the statements and arguments can be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 20 million to the defendant's account on December 1, 201, KRW 1.5 million on December 2, 2011, and KRW 31 million on December 30, 201. The defendant recognized the fact that the defendant borrowed KRW 51 million from the plaintiff in the course of purchasing three parcels of land around 2011, around 201 (the defendant asserted that the plaintiff invested in the plaintiff through a preparatory document as of May 4, 201, but it cannot be accepted). If this circumstance exists, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff lent the remaining amount of KRW 15 million transferred to the plaintiff's account at around that time.

Although the defendant asserts at the request of the plaintiff that the above land should be paid in installments as much as the amount of loan of each above land, the above defendant's argument cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

Therefore, from March 29, 2016 to the rendering date of this judgment, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 29, 2016 to the date of giving notice for the return of the original copy of the payment order, which appears to have lapsed a considerable period of time from the date of service of the original copy of the payment order (on January 28, 2016, as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the time of return in connection with the loan contract for consumption, the time of return shall expire from the time of giving notice for the return pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, which is deemed to have lapsed two months from the date of service of the original copy of the payment order (on January 28, 2016, the plaintiff shall notify the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the plaintiff, and from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above recognized scope.