1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,500,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 1, 2015 to July 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 26.5 million to the Defendant around July 2, 2013 (hereinafter the instant loan), and the Defendant, around July 11, 2013, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the payment of KRW 6.5 million out of the said loan to the Plaintiff in installments from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 (hereinafter the instant repayment agreement) and the remainder of KRW 20 million by August 30, 2015 (hereinafter the instant repayment agreement).

On the other hand, each of the above amounts stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 1 through 3 of the evidence Nos. 6-1 and 3 submitted by the defendant on the ground that the above money itself is a donation money is insufficient to be a counter-proof to the extent that the facts acknowledged as the grounds for the above defendant's assertion are followed.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 26.5 million and the damages for delay from the day after each of the above payment dates.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. After the Defendant’s assertion on the instant repayment agreement, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to donate the instant loan to the Defendant by making several instances of declaration of intention that the Plaintiff would not repay the instant loan to the Defendant, and ② finally, the Defendant would substitute the repayment of the instant loan with the payment or remuneration for assisting the Plaintiff in the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s book. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a publication auxiliary service for the Plaintiff until September 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any obligation to return the loan to the Plaintiff under the instant repayment agreement.

B. (1) Comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Plaintiff, after the instant repayment agreement, made conclusive declaration of intention that the Plaintiff would not repay the instant loan to the Defendant.

It is reasonable to recognize that the Defendant made a conclusive declaration of intent to donate the money under the instant repayment agreement to the Defendant.