1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,869,696 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from September 10, 2019 to February 26, 2020.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged as Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff can be recognized as leasing a total of KRW 40 million to the defendant two times as follows.

The term “loan I” means a loan that was made on August 30, 2018 without an agreement of KRW 20,000,000 on January 30, 2018, when the interest on the leased principal was due and due date for payment of interest.

2. There is no agreement on KRW 20,000,000 on June 14, 2018, and no such agreement is made; hereinafter referred to as “second loan”) on July 14, 2018.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay from July 15, 2018, and from August 31, 2018, to the date of repayment with respect to the amount of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 following the due date for repayment, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defense of performance

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 40.6 million between January 29, 2018 and September 9, 2018 and repaid all the loans 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the facts stated in Eul evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant stated that the sum of KRW 39,600,000,000, in total, to the Plaintiff from January 29, 2018 to September 9, 2019, is “40,600,000,” but the sum of the amounts pursuant to the statement stated in the statement appears to be “39,60,000,000” as “40,60,000,000,” respectively.

The first pleading protocol recognizes that the Plaintiff received KRW 40,600,000 from the Defendant.

“Although it is stated to the effect that the Defendant made a statement, it is merely the purport of recognizing the facts alleged in the Answer as they are, not the purport of specifying the amount paid as KRW 40,60,000.

The fact that the payment was made can be recognized, and since there is no evidence to assert the agreement or the designation of the appropriation of payment, each of the above payments shall be as follows in the order of statutory appropriation of payment.