1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Determination of the cause of a claim shall be made on September 18, 2009 and on September 19, 2008, with the maturity of KRW 20 million as of September 18, 2009 and interest rate of KRW 5 million as of December 30, 2013, and the maturity of KRW 2 million as of March 20, 2014, and KRW 2 million as of February 28, 2014 as of February 28, 2014 may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the claim; or (b) there is no dispute between the parties to the claim and the entire purport of the pleadings in the statement in subparagraphs 1 and 3.

On the other hand, on July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 10 million out of the above loans KRW 20 million from the Defendant, and according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 2 million from the Defendant on June 28, 2018.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15 million not paid to the Plaintiff ( KRW 5 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from September 20, 2009 to the date of full payment, which is agreed upon by the Plaintiff after the due date, to the date of full payment; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from March 21, 2014 that the Plaintiff seeks from March 21, 2014 to the date of full payment; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of this decision, which is the date of this decision, to December 13, 2019 to the date of full payment; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of this decision, which is stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to have repaid the above loan ① twice, so it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone exceeds KRW 10 million among the above loan ① a person who was repaid by the Defendant on July 30, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.