1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 19,000,00 to the Defendant without setting interest and maturity for payment does not conflict between the parties or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 1. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,00,000 from the Defendant, and the same year.

8.1. 500,000 won in total, 1,500,000 won in total, are those persons who have received reimbursement.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 17,500,000 won (=19,000,000 won - 1,500,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 20, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to perform.

2. The defendant's defense defense defenses that the defendant paid to the plaintiff KRW 3,734,108 in addition to the above KRW 1,50,000,00, as well as the above KRW 3,734,108, and therefore, according to the evidence No. 5, Sep. 26, 2016; KRW 1,00,000,000 in addition to the amount paid by the plaintiff as the plaintiff; KRW 234,108, Nov. 15, 2017; KRW 300,000 on Feb. 15, 2017;

8.50,000 won, and the same year.

4. 14. 50 million won can be recognized as having been deposited into the Plaintiff’s account. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above remitted money was paid as a repayment for the above borrowed money only with the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that it was paid otherwise.

Rather, the aforementioned evidence and the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 comprehensively considered the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant of a Do governor which was a Do governor and the Defendant had a relation of interest at the time of lending the said loan; (b) the Defendant promised to purchase an automobile in installment to the Plaintiff, and (c) from October 2016, the Plaintiff promised to transfer the vehicle installment to the Plaintiff, and (d) monthly from around 471 to the account in its name