1. The Defendant’s KRW 148,100,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 1, 2018 to August 16, 2018.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the ground of the claim No. 1, the defendant is found to have borrowed KRW 200 million from the plaintiff on August 20, 2012, and the plaintiff is the person who received reimbursement of KRW 40 million from the above KRW 200 million until October 17, 2014, and the defendant is liable to pay the remaining principal of the loan and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2. As to the judgment on the defense of repayment, etc., the defendant asserted that the defendant actually repaid some of the remainder of the loan principal from the end of November 2013 to the end of September 2014 as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the repayment plan. However, the defendant's defense of repayment of principal does not have any evidence to acknowledge the fact of actual repayment.

In addition, with respect to the defendant's defense that he paid some of the above loan principal KRW 160 million even after 2017,000, the plaintiff asserted that he received 11,900,000 as interest for the remainder of the loan principal of this case while the plaintiff was a person who received 11,90,000 won as a whole from February 14, 2017 to February 23, 2018.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff paid 200 million won to the defendant in total from November 201 to August 2012, 201. The defendant promised to pay 10 times the amount of investment profits to the plaintiff every month from the return on investment, and promised to guarantee the principal. The defendant prepared a cash certificate or a loan certificate for the guaranteed investment principal; according to the failure of investment, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a payment statement for the principal amount of KRW 160 million to the plaintiff on September 23, 2013 and a payment plan for the principal amount of KRW 160,000,000 for the plaintiff on September 23, 2013. In addition, it is not found that the phrase "interest" is not "interest on the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 through 4 submitted by the plaintiff.