1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 170,000,000 and KRW 100,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,00,000 from July 19, 2017, and KRW 70,00,00.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 to 3 of the judgment as to the cause for the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that (i) the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on July 19, 2017 with the interest rate of KRW 4% per annum and December 31, 2017, respectively, and (ii) the interest rate of KRW 70,000,000 on August 7, 2017 and the due date of repayment of KRW 4% per annum and June 30, 2018, respectively.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 4% per annum of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of lending, for the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 170,000,000 and its total amount of KRW 100,000,000 from July 19, 2017, the date of lending KRW 70,000,000,000, which is the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by each Plaintiff, until September 18, 2019, which is the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, who recommended the Defendant to leave the election of the president of the C organization in 2017, requested the Defendant to take part in the election of the president of the C organization, and then asked the seat of the Secretary-General in the event of the Plaintiff’s election of the president who is to bear the election expenses, and thereafter, 170,000,000 won for the election expenses to the Defendant. However, since the issue may arise under the Public Official Election Act, he/she prepared a formal loan certificate (Evidence A 1 and 2).

B. However, as well as there is no evidence to prove the above assertion by the defendant, as long as the disposal document is recognized as the authenticity, it shall be interpreted that there was an expression of intent by the party according to the contents of the language stated in the disposal document, unless there is any special circumstance to deny the probative value of each loan of this case. However, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no proof of special circumstance to deny the probative value of each loan

3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable.