1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 38,360,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from July 15, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on a monthly basis in 200 and received the principal and interest of KRW 20,00,000 from September 2005, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repay the remainder of the principal and interest of KRW 10,000 by November 20, 2013, and the Defendant agreed to preferentially pay the principal and interest of KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant by November 20, 2013.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) and its delay damages.

B. As to the judgment on the defense of this case, the defendant asserted that he paid the principal and interest of the loan of this case, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 5 of this case, the defendant paid to the plaintiff the amount indicated in the "date of satisfaction of performance" in the attached Table for satisfaction of performance to the plaintiff from November 1, 2005 to July 16, 2014. In this case where there is no evidence to prove that the repayment amount paid to the plaintiff was agreed or designated, it shall be appropriated in the order of interest and the principal in legal order pursuant to Article 479 of the Civil Act, but if the remainder is appropriated to the leased principal, it shall be appropriated first to the interest calculated with 24% per annum, which is the agreed rate of the principal, and then the principal and the agreed person as stated in the attached Table for satisfaction of performance shall be extinguished on May 24, 2010.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit is therefore groundless.

2. According to the facts established prior to the determination on the counterclaim, the Defendant may claim the return of KRW 38,360,000 out of the above amount to the Plaintiff, even though the interest based on the original and the agreed rate had ceased to exist on May 24, 2010, by full repayment, as stated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance.