1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000, and 8% per annum from April 1, 2012 to August 13, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C lent KRW 150 million to the Defendant on November 18, 2008 on condition that 8% interest per annum was paid to the Defendant, and thereafter, only KRW 50 million was paid from the Defendant.

On September 14, 2011, C transferred the remaining loan claims to D with the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on September 15, 201, and the above notification reached the Defendant at that time.

D As of March 11, 2012, the Plaintiff died and became a sole heir.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won of the loan balance and interest or delay damages.

B. On November 18, 2008, the Defendant’s assertion C transferred KRW 150 million to the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s name, which was KRW 100,000,000, KRW 1000,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter referred to as “D only if the above two persons are mentioned) paid out the money previously borrowed from E, and only the remainder of KRW 50,00,000,000 was separately lent to E. Since E paid KRW 50,00,000 to D, all of the loan claims were extinguished.

Even if the above KRW 100 million was a loan, the Defendant’s account transferred by C was actually used by E, which was the former spouse of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not borrow money from D.

2. Determination

A. According to Gap evidence No. 1, Nov. 18, 2008, whether a KRW 100 million is a loan, C, on November 18, 2008, remitted KRW 150 million to the bank account under the defendant's name on November 18, 2008, and thereafter, the defendant remitted KRW 50,750,000 to D on October 5, 2009 and October 6, 2009.

Since there is no dispute between the original defendant with regard to the loan of KRW 50 million among the above money, the remaining KRW 100 million is a loan.

Considering the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the records and arguments in the instant case, the circumstances in which there is no loan certificate between D and the Defendant or E.