1. The Defendant’s claim for loans (Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea34511) against the Plaintiff is enforceable.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties is a person with a foreign nationality who has arranged to enter a casino in the Pakistan hotel in Busan, and the plaintiff also has a foreign nationality and was aware of it with the defendant while running the casino in the above Pakistan casino as a broker by the defendant.

B. Around March 14, 2014, the Defendant loaned KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the period of repayment fixed as of April 3, 2014. However, the Plaintiff failed to repay the said loan even after the due date.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the return of the instant loan with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Guj34511, and on June 26, 2014, the said court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order with respect to KRW 100 million and its money until the full payment date.” The instant payment order was finalized on July 18, 2014.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant KRW 50 million on July 16, 2014, and KRW 25 million on or around August 18, 2014. The Defendant continued to enforce compulsory execution against corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the original copy of the instant payment order. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 26,041,096 (the total sum of the outstanding principal and interest of the instant loan plus KRW 25 million) and the execution cost of KRW 103,60,00 in total.

E. Since then, the Defendant alleged that he lent an additional KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff on July 16, 2014, separate from the instant loan, and continued the compulsory execution procedure for corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff based on the original copy of the instant payment order. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection against the instant claim around November 7, 2014.