1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000 and the above KRW 60,000 among the above amounts, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 110,000 from December 1, 2018, and KRW 50,000.

On October 25, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 60 million from November 2017 to November 2018 to the Plaintiff.

“Preparation and issuance of a monetary loan agreement to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2017, and, on November 27, 2017, “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million from November 27, 2017 to November 27, 2019”; the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a monetary loan agreement to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff wired KRW 60 million in total to the Defendant’s passbook from November 5, 2017 to KRW 5 million on December 5, 2017; and the Plaintiff wired KRW 60 million in total to the Defendant’s passbook and KRW 5 million on November 27, 2017 may be recognized either as disputed between the parties or by means of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs A through 4.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of KRW 110 million under each of the above monetary loan agreements and damages for delay.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 110 million paid to the Defendant is not a loan for investment in fund instruments operated by the financial company located in Hong Kong, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to regard the Plaintiff’s investment amount of KRW 110 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million and KRW 60 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at each rate of KRW 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 28, 2019 to May 27, 2020, which is the date when the Defendant rendered a substantial decision, to dispute on the existence or scope of the obligation to perform the instant case from November 28, 2019, with respect to KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,0

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.