1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 86,00,000 and KRW 82,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall start on July 1, 2012, and the remainder of KRW 4,00.

1. Basic facts

A. From 2005 to 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 74 million to the Defendant, the spouse of C, who is a spouse’s private village.

B. On October 5, 2011, the Defendant offered an auction to the Plaintiff on the real estate owned by it and requested the Plaintiff to lend the fees for attorney’s appointment. On the same day, the Plaintiff was issued a performance certificate to the effect that, while lending KRW 5 million to the Defendant, the Defendant borrowed KRW 74 million prior to the lending of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant would hand over the Plaintiff at cost one loan built by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 6, 2011, the Defendant again requested the Plaintiff to lend KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, while lending KRW 8 million to the Defendant from 2005 to 2007, was issued with a loan certificate and a promissory note stating that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 74 million to the Defendant, a loan of KRW 5 million in the name of an attorney’s fees, KRW 87 million in the name of a nominal loan, KRW 87 million in the name of a nominal loan, and KRW 3 million in the interest on KRW 74 million in the said loan, and KRW 90 million in the interest on KRW 3 million in the said loan, until June 30, 2012.

The Plaintiff was reimbursed KRW 8 million from the Defendant for a nominal loan of KRW 2013,00,000 from the Defendant. On September 3, 2013, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff leased KRW 4 million on a two-month basis.

E. On September 2013 and June 2015, the Plaintiff received and executed a provisional attachment order on real estate owned by the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (the defendant asserted that Gap's certificate No. 1 was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and considering the whole purport of the pleading as a result of the appraiser D's appraisal of documents, the authenticity is recognized) and the purport of the whole pleading.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant calculated by subtracting KRW 8 million from the Plaintiff’s loan and promissory note amounting to KRW 90,000,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff, and KRW 4 million from September 3, 2013.