The defendant shall pay 10 million won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 24, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

On September 26, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 25 million to the Defendant on September 26, 2010, there is no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 15 million out of the above loans. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan (=25 million won - 15 million) and the delay damages.

As to this, the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff and offered the money equivalent to KRW 25 million to the plaintiff as security for transfer, and the plaintiff converted the above money into money and appropriated it for all repayment of the above loan. Thus, it is argued to the effect that the above loan debt was fully repaid through the above liquidation procedure.

The Defendant’s lending of money to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the Evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the Plaintiff sold 86 money and received KRW 15 million from the Defendant on February 7, 2017. The Plaintiff’s lending of money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was at the time of the sale of the said money, or at the same time of the sale of the said money, was at the time of the said lending loan, and the fact that the said sale price of KRW 15 million was at the same time as the said sale price was at the time of the sale of the said money.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the gold attached by the Defendant to the Plaintiff exceeds 86 e.g., 86 e., the gold attached by the Defendant does not appear to have sold 86 e.g., salt prices unfairly.

Therefore, the defendant's above defenses cannot be accepted under the premise that the defendant provided the plaintiff with gold War equivalent to KRW 25 million.

Then, the defendant argues to the effect that since the plaintiff lent money to the defendant as a unregistered credit service provider, the monetary loan between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes commercial activities, and the defendant's obligation under this is over five years extinctive prescription. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone that the plaintiff was running the credit business.