1. The Defendant’s KRW 62,80,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 10, 2018 to August 22, 2018.

1. The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 75,000,000 to the Defendant around the beginning of 2003, KRW 50,000,000 around April of 2003, and KRW 50,00,000 around the end of 2003, and KRW 75,00,000 among the parties does not conflict. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant around the beginning of 2004.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining loans of KRW 72,00,000,000 for KRW 70,743,014 and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant's defense that he paid the plaintiff KRW 26,700,000 to the plaintiff.

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 9, the Defendant may recognize that the Defendant has repaid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 9,200,000 as shown in the attached Table from January 27, 2006 to September 22, 2017. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant has repaid the above amount in excess of the above amount. Thus, the above loan claim remains 62,80,000 (=72,00,000 - 9,200,000) upon extinguishment within the scope of KRW 9,200,000.

The defendant's defense is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s above repayment was appropriated for the repayment of the interest on the above loan or the damages for delay, but there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the interest on the above loan claims only with the entries (including the serial number) in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to see that the above loan claim was due at the time of repayment by the defendant, and there is no evidence to see that interest or delay damages claim has occurred.

3. If so, the Defendant’s remaining loans to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 62,800,000, and the instant complaint was served after the date of service of the copy of the complaint, and it is reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligations from May 10, 2018.