1. As to KRW 259,805,375 among the Plaintiff and KRW 226,531,505 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall: (a) from March 22, 2016 to December 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. From November 20, 2014, the Defendant operated a simple point of “D” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and its name holder is E.

B. The instant simplified store was operated until the end of February 2016.

[Recognition of Facts] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Plaintiff’s request

A. 1) Examining the overall purport of the pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s claim for loan 1: (i) the Plaintiff agreed on each of the above 1 and 2% (12% per annum) to the Defendant on November 7, 2014; (ii) the Plaintiff loaned 250 million won to the Defendant on April 3, 2015; (iii) the amount of loan 250 million won per annum from the Defendant on November 2014 to 3605; and (iv) the amount of loan 250 million won per annum from the above 250 million won to 360 million won per annum; and (v) the agreement was received from the Defendant on March 21, 2016 to 360 million won x 3.5 billion won per annum from the above 2605 billion won per annum; and (v) the above agreement was collected from the Plaintiff on March 21, 2016 to 205 billion won per annum 25 billion won per annum.

On the other hand, Article 603 of the Civil Code provides that "if there is no agreement on the time of return, the lender shall demand the return with a reasonable period fixed, and the lender shall demand the return thereof." Since there is no provision regarding the highest method in a loan for consumption that does not exist at the time of return as in this case, it may be served as a duplicate of