1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,209,863 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 21, 2016 to December 8, 2016, and the following.

1. In full view of the facts without dispute over basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiff loaned 34 million won to the defendant on July 11, 2013, and 30 million won on August 11, 2013 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the loan of this case on February 3, 2016, and the defendant paid 64 million won to the plaintiff on June 20, 2016.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff agreed to give and receive interest at the time of lending the instant loan to the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that the amount repaid by the Defendant is preferentially appropriated for interest (5% of the private interest) up to June 20, 2016, and the remainder of the principal and interest interest thereon should be paid to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that the instant loan was fully repaid, given that there was no interest agreement at the time of borrowing the loan.

B. Determination 1) Since a loan for consumption under the Civil Act is a non-interest principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da38119, May 31, 2007), the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that there was an interest agreement on the loan of this case to the Defendant. 2) As to whether the Plaintiff agreed on the interest at the time of lending the loan of this case to the Defendant, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant stated on January 26, 2016 that “I will pay interest to the Defendant’s wife (the Plaintiff’s wife’s husband’s wife’s wife’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s wife’s wife’s interest, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was an interest agreement at the time of lending the loan of this case. However, the Plaintiff’s testimony at the time of the lease of the witness at the time.