1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 24, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the claim for loans made on March 27, 2014

A. The Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 3 million to the Defendant on March 27, 2014 without setting the due date for reimbursement is not a dispute between the parties. Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 3 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 24, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

B. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff to receive KRW 2,50,000 as monthly salary, and provided labor to the Plaintiff. After borrowing KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 2,00,000 from the monthly salary to the Defendant, and then deducted the amount of KRW 2,00,000 from the monthly salary to the Defendant and appropriated the said loan for the repayment of the above loan. Accordingly, the above loan was fully repaid. 2) The written statement in the evidence No. 1, 2, 200,000,000 won, to the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has deducted KRW 200,000 per month from the benefits to be paid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

2. Determination on the claim for loans made on March 17, 2015

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 4 million to the Defendant on March 17, 2015 at the Defendant’s request, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 4 million and the delay damages.

B. In addition to the statement No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2-2, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to the Defendant on March 17, 2015 is recognized.

However, in this case where the defendant alleged that he was paid the above money as wages rather than the loan, the plaintiff is only the above-mentioned facts and the statement of Gap evidence No. 5.