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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s written evidence and the entire argument as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent 30,000 bills to the defendant and C on July 3, 201, China (hereinafter “instant loan”), and that the defendant and C agreed to repay the said money at the end of October 201.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant loan obligation is the joint and several debt between the Defendant and C, while the Defendant asserts that it is a divided debt. In principle, each obligee or each obligor has the right at an equal rate and bears the obligation in the absence of any special declaration of intention (see Article 408 of the Civil Act). In the instant case, the loan certificate stated that “the Defendant and C borrowed 30,000 bills from the Plaintiff,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant loan obligation is the joint and several debt. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to repay the instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff at an equal rate (1/2) together with C.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,577,000 won calculated at the exchange rate of 15,000 won (15,000 won x 1/2) at the time of the conclusion of pleadings at the trial at the court of the first instance (i.e., 15,000 won x 171.8 won x 1) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 1, 2011 to October 17, 2017, which is the date when the judgment of the court of the first instance is rendered, for the dispute as to the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to perform, until October 17, 2017, the date when the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered; and

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant repaid all of the instant loans at the end of October. 2) The Defendant borrowed the instant loans from the Plaintiff and paid 3,000 bills to the Plaintiff’s wife upon the Plaintiff’s request for living expenses. As such, the amount should be deducted.

3. From April 16, 2016 to November 6, 2015, the Defendant is 120,000 won to the Plaintiff on a total of six occasions.