1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 6 million to the Defendant 2% of interest per month and the due date on December 30, 2009.

The Plaintiff received a loan from the card company and lent KRW 6 million to the Defendant. Of KRW 6 million, KRW 2 million was deducted as necessary fees for the above loan, and KRW 2.5 million was deposited into D’s account as designated by the Defendant, and KRW 3.3 million was deposited into the Defendant’s account.

On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff received KRW 1.5 million out of the principal from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 1.15 million from October 9, 2012 to October 27, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan 4.5 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant only borrowed 3.3 million won from the plaintiff on January 20, 2009 without fixing the interest and the due date.

Therefore, KRW 1.5 million paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2009 and KRW 1.150,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff from October 9, 2012 to October 27, 2016 should be appropriated to the principal out of the above borrowed amount.

Therefore, the remainder of the loan that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 3.3 million - KRW 1.5 million - KRW 1.15 million).

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 3.3 million to the Defendant on January 20, 2009 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

2) On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff lent money exceeding KRW 3.3 million to the Defendant on January 20, 2009.

In the absence of dispute, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the following circumstances, i.e., the document of disposition, such as a loan, was not prepared in relation to this part of the loan alleged by the plaintiff, and ii) if the plaintiff lent 6 million won to the defendant on January 20, 2009, as alleged by the plaintiff, the entire loan is transferred to the defendant.