1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. In light of the judgment on the cause of the claim, if each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witness C of the trial party, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent to the defendant the amount of KRW 6 million on April 21, 2015, KRW 5 million on August 21, 2015, and that the plaintiff received KRW 4.7 million from the defendant among the above loans (hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case"), and that the plaintiff received reimbursement of the amount of KRW 4.7 million from the defendant.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 6.3 million (=6 million - 4.7 million) and damages for delay.

2. Examining the Defendant’s determination on the Defendant’s defense of repayment in addition to the written evidence No. 1’s overall purport of the pleading, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, on the ground that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant transferred each telephone transfer of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, and KRW 5 million on April 22, 2016.

Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that he/she paid 1 million won to the Plaintiff on April 22, 2016, the Defendant’s assertion that he/she paid 1 million won to the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the entries in subparagraph 1 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, if the statement of No. 4 and the testimony of the witness C of the party trial show the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the defendant has received the fraternity from the defendant as an intermediary money, and there is no counter-proof otherwise, if the defendant joined the fraternity, and paid the fraternity money each month on December 17, 2015.

According to the above facts, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on March 17, 2016, and KRW 5 million on April 22, 2016, shall not be the repayment of the instant loan, but the payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim pointing this out has merit, and the Defendant’s defense of repayment has no merit.

Therefore, the defendant is a 6.3 million won and its lease date to the plaintiff.