1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 17, 2018 to December 19, 2018, respectively.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff transferred KRW 70 million to the defendant, who had been in a relationship with the defendant on October 1, 2014. Around that time, the defendant prepared and gave a written confirmation to the plaintiff about the above money. The defendant sent text messages to the purport that the plaintiff would incur the above money in a hedge with the defendant, and the defendant sent the text messages to the effect that the plaintiff would cause the above money.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 70 million to the Defendant on October 1, 2014 is the amount that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the above KRW 70 million was a donation under each subparagraph and presented the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, but the above evidence alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 70 million.

2. The Defendant asserts that, from December 3, 2014 to December 3, 2014, the amount of KRW 20 million was paid in 10,000,000 each month from around 2,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, while living together with the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have any money to be paid to the Plaintiff.

The fact that the defendant paid 20 million won to the plaintiff in 10 million won to the plaintiff does not clearly dispute the plaintiff, and thus, it is deemed that the plaintiff led to confession.

Considering the fact that the above 20 million won should be deducted from the above loan, the Defendant borrowed 70 million won from the Plaintiff and paid 2 million won per month from the second month to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to deem that there was an interest agreement on the above loan, it is reasonable to deem that the above 20 million won was paid for the repayment of the above loan.

However, since the money paid by the defendant while living together with the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been paid for the repayment of the loan, the defendant's remaining argument is without merit.

Therefore, it is true.