1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff: (a) on July 21, 2010, KRW 4,850,000, KRW 150,000 on July 27, 2010, and KRW 4,850,00 on August 2, 2010, determined and lent to the Defendant at 3% of each interest month.

Since then, with respect to the above loan obligations, the Defendant prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan dated August 2, 2010, stating that the loan amount shall be KRW 10,000,000, and the loan period shall be from August 2, 2010 to December 2, 2010, and that the interest shall be paid on the second day of each month.

The Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 3 million to the Defendant on September 7, 2010, and KRW 2 million on September 15, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Each of the entries in A through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages for ① 10,000,000 with loan certificates issued on August 2, 2010; ② 3,00,000,000 won on September 7, 2010; ③ 15,00,000,000 won on September 15, 2010 to the person who received reimbursement from the Plaintiff, and KRW 5,50,000,000 for interest and delay damages.

On the other hand, in light of the defendant's "Written Answer on the Notification of Content Certification" (A1-2) that the above two interest rates and the third interest rates are borrowed on the condition of the number of days (120 days) and paid 50,000 won, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed at the rate of 30% per annum. However, since the plaintiff claimed 23% per annum in total for all loans, the interest rates of 23% per annum shall apply to the calculation of damages for delay.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant was exempted from interest since 2011, on the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant, after one year, prepared a loan certificate retroactively to the Plaintiff, and was exempted from interest.

However, there is a lack of evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the above exemption from interest only with the statement in Gap 3-6 or the data submitted by the defendant, and there is no other evidence, the above assertion is without merit.

Offset Claim Nos. 43 and 53 here.