1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the Defendant on July 25, 2013 at the annual rate of 6%; thereafter, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20 million to the Defendant again from September 2013 to December 2013; and the Defendant paid KRW 250,000 to the Plaintiff for the interest of KRW 50 million until August 24, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,000 to the Plaintiff is not in dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,2, and KRW 50,00 to the Plaintiff is recognized by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 70 million (i.e., KRW 50 million) and the amount of KRW 50 million among them, with an annual interest rate of KRW 6% from August 25, 2013 to December 2, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint from August 25, 2013, and with an annual interest rate of KRW 15% from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Meanwhile, on May 13, 2016, the Defendant made a statement on the first date for pleading of the first instance court, as of December 31, 2015, and on March 8, 2016, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the confession was due to the violation of the truth and the mistake, although the Defendant submitted a preparatory document as of September 12, 2016 (the Defendant’s assertion that borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant).

Therefore, the revocation of confession by the defendant is invalid.

C. In addition, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he paid interest for two months to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to support that the Defendant paid interest to the Plaintiff in excess of the interest until August 24, 2013, which was recognized earlier. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

Finally, the defendant purchased the land of Socheon City C and D and tried to newly build a furniture factory on that land, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff are about the new construction project.