1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant borrowed 20,000,000 won from the plaintiff on May 30, 2006 at the interest rate of 10% per annum and the due date of payment on September 2006, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 20,000,000 won with interest rate of 10% per annum from May 30, 2006, which is the date of borrowing the loan, to November 2, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full repayment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserted that the loan of this case was fully repaid to the plaintiff in cash or by cashier's checks around that time from KRW 97,50,000, which was received by selling the living countermeasure site on September 5, 2007.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-3 to 1-3, the defendant's child C, the defendant's child, sold 8 of the living countermeasure site in the D new city development area on September 5, 2007 and received 97,50,000 won from the purchaser at the price, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the above facts and the statements in the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5 are sufficient to recognize that the defendant repaid the loan of this case to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The defendant, upon receiving a request from the plaintiff who worked at E's farm as of December 28, 2006, stated that "E loaned KRW 5,000,000 as it is economically difficult for the plaintiff to pay wages," and lent KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff, the defendant's defense that the above loan claim against the plaintiff is offset against the loan claim of this case.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant lent KRW 5,00,00 to the Plaintiff solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 7, and that there is evidence to acknowledge otherwise.