1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 9, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. The allegations by the parties are as follows: (a) eight times from August 11, 201 to January 11, 2012; (b) KRW 52.5 million on August 11, 201; and (c) KRW 3 million on August 11, 201; and (d) the same year.

9. 8.4 million won; 14.5 million won on October 14, 100 of the same year; 1.5 million won on October 23, 100 of the same year; 1.7.1 million won on November 1 of the same year; 20.5 million won on December 20, 2012; 1.4 million won on January 14, 2012;

1.1.1.1 million won has been remitted to a party, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that it is a loan, and the defendant asserts that it is a gift.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a loan, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 17 and the purport of the entire pleadings:

① Most of the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was the amount of money loaned by the Plaintiff using the Marth passbook, not the surplus funds owned by the Plaintiff.

② On April 1, 2016, the Defendant only talks with the Plaintiff and talks about the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not have the ability to repay the said money to the Plaintiff requesting the return of money, but did not state that the Defendant was not responsible for the repayment.

③ At the time of transferring money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in an internal relationship with the Plaintiff, but there is a case where the Plaintiff did not enter into an agreement on the maturity or interest when lending money in an ordinary-friendly relationship. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude it as a donation solely on the basis that there was no agreement on the maturity or interest.

Rather, it is excessive to regard the amount of the one-time remittance as a simple gift, such as the amount reaches a maximum of 1.5 million won.

3. Accordingly, according to the conclusion, the Defendant is 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim after the Plaintiff requested repayment of the remainder of 4.6.5 million won, excluding the remainder of 6.5 million won from the Plaintiff’s loan, and after the Plaintiff demanded repayment, from September 9, 2016 to the date of full payment.