1. The Defendant’s KRW 20 million and KRW 10 million among the Plaintiff’s KRW 20 million shall be from January 1, 2010 to KRW 10 million.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2004, the Plaintiff claimed as six copies of the KRW 60 million check at the maturity of KRW 10 million and gave rise to the Defendant.

On October 18, 2004, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 7 million into the Defendant’s passbook.

B. On August 6, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant with the effect that “the Defendant, even if having borrowed money from the Plaintiff, without any intention or ability to purchase the apartment, borrowed money from the Plaintiff, he borrowed KRW 40 million, which is necessary to purchase the apartment, and acquired by deceiving the Defendant through deceptioning KRW 50 million in total from the Plaintiff, including lending KRW 40 million as it is necessary to purchase the apartment.”

C. On August 7, 2008, the Defendant prepared a copy of the loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2009 due date for repayment,” and one copy of the loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2009, the due date for repayment shall be December 31, 2010,” respectively, to the Plaintiff, and deposited KRW 20 million with the Plaintiff’s passbook.

On the same day, the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of a complaint stating that “the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 50 million from the Defendant as agreed amount,” and withdrawn the complaint against the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact inquiry results of this court's Busan Bank and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff claimed the payment of the remaining loan amounting to KRW 30 million and the delay damages after deducting the loan amounting to KRW 20 million on the premise that the loan was paid KRW 50 million.

As to this, the Defendant, in the reply of February 14, 2013, acknowledged the fact that he borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff. However, after the criminal complaint, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to exempt KRW 30 million from the borrowed amount. Accordingly, the Defendant prepared each of the instant loans to the Plaintiff.