1. The defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties C jointly and severally against the plaintiff KRW 63,791,328 and KRW 13,791,328 among them.

1. Around September 2009, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 100 million from a bank as collateral and lent it to the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff. Around July 5, 2010, the Defendant partially repaid the loan of KRW 50 million (hereinafter referred to as the “instant first loan”), and the Plaintiff again lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on or around December 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant second loan”). The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 7.6 million to the Plaintiff from December 23, 2016 to June 26, 2018, in aggregate, as repayment for the second loan of this case between the parties or between the parties, the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence No. 1, 100, and evidence No. 11 through No. 11-3; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 63,791,328 (the amount of KRW 50,791,328,000,000 in the balance of KRW 13,791,328,000 in the balance of KRW 200,000 in the balance of the first loan) and delay damages therefrom, considering that the Defendant first paid KRW 200,000 for the first time around December 23, 2016, which appears at the time when a considerable period of time after the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the return according to the purport of the entire pleadings, as indicated in the calculation sheet of the amount to be appropriated in the attached Form, if the Defendant calculated according to the statutory appropriation that the due date has arrived and the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 7,60,000 in the amount to be paid, as indicated in the calculation sheet of the amount to be appropriated.

The Plaintiff, around December 2014, lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant the above amount plus KRW 50 million when lending KRW 20 million to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is obligated to repay the above amount to the Plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the written evidence No. 8, 9, and 11. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. The defendant is against the balance of the first loan of this case 50 million won, and the plaintiff is against the defendant.