1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 25, 2013 to February 8, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2006, the Plaintiff leased part of the 1st floor (89.34 square meters out of 104.34 square meters; hereinafter “Defendant’s office”) among the three-story buildings on the 3rd floor in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant’s telegraphic body, to KRW 60 million, and as the Defendant’s director from March 201 to September 2016, the Plaintiff was responsible for the Defendant’s vicarious performance of duties as the president of the partnership.

B. On September 8, 2011, to January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, at the request of an executive officer, etc. of the partnership, lent a total of KRW 30 million to the Defendant over 16 times from September 8, 201 to January 24, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, while lending KRW 30 million to the Defendant, the Defendant had the Defendant’s office and decided to pay the Defendant’s office on behalf of him, and that if a new enforcement office is formed at the latest, the Defendant’s general meeting held on October 23, 2016 constituted a new enforcement office with D as the head of the partnership. Thus, the repayment period for the said loan became due.

In addition, it argues that the interest was agreed to be paid by applying the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act at the time of the above lending.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that in the future, since the defendant selected a new city redevelopment project and repaid the loan when the normal redevelopment project is implemented, the repayment period for the loan has not yet arrived, and that the interest should be paid by applying the interest rate on the loan by commercial banks or the statutory interest rate (5% per annum) under the Civil Act should

B. Even based on the evidence Nos. 2-5, 8, and 9, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff or the Defendant agreed to the due date or interest rate as alleged.

Therefore, the repayment period of KRW 30 million that the plaintiff lent to the defendant is insufficient to prove both the plaintiff and the defendant.