1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff’s lending KRW 10 million to the Defendant on August 11, 2017, in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim; or (b) the entire purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above loan 10 million won and the damages for delay from February 28, 2018, following the delivery date of the certified copy of the instant performance recommendation decision (as seen below, insofar as the Defendant partially accepted the Defendant’s defense of repayment, it is reasonable to view that the rate of damages for delay from February 28, 2018 to the date of the final judgment of the trial court is 5% per annum).

Meanwhile, on March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted “328,767 won at the rate of 6% per annum for the pertinent period from August 12, 2017, which was the day immediately following the date of the foregoing loan, until February 27, 2018,” but the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the interest rate at the time of the loan.

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above loan obligation is an obligation arising out of commercial activities and the commercial statutory interest rate under Article 54 of the Commercial Act is applicable, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The Defendant asserts that the repayment defense should be appropriated for the principal of the loan from December 2, 2017 to March 2019.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, the Defendant’s performance of the amount indicated in the “date of performance” column in the attached table of calculation of appropriation amount to the Plaintiff from December 8, 2017 to March 14, 2019 can be recognized as having been discharged to the Plaintiff on the date indicated in the “date of performance” column of the attached table of calculation of appropriation amount.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to see that there was an agreement or designation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the satisfaction of the obligation, and the amount of the repayment is interest as stated in the attached amount calculation table.