1. The Defendant’s KRW 69,000,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from January 1, 2003 to November 5, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120 million to the Defendant in 2002, and that the Defendant paid a total of KRW 51 million from February 10, 2012 to February 13, 2014 may be recognized by the purport of the evidence No. 1 and No. 3, and there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 69 million won (120 million won - 51 million won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 1, 2003 to November 5, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant claiming repayment has fully repaid the borrowed amount of KRW 120 million, and on December 29, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to divide the profits generated in the course of operating multiple bookstores between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff into KRW 50:50. On November 14, 2011, the Plaintiff did not have distributed profits once to the Defendant, unlike the agreement, even though the Plaintiff recorded the black amount of KRW 448,513,686 at the time.

Therefore, it argues that if 50% of the above amount of interest is received from the agreed 50% of the above amount of interest, all of the borrowed amount will be repaid.

As to whether there is a profit distribution amount exceeding KRW 200 million that the Defendant shall receive from the Plaintiff according to the agreement, it is difficult to recognize it only by the statement of health class Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the Defendant is without

B. The Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has expired ten years since 10 years since 2002, the borrowing date, the borrowing date, and that the Plaintiff’s claim was terminated by prescription. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in the amount of KRW 50 million around November 18, 2005.