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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion from November 201 to the Defendant: (a) around April 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to the Defendant with his/her business funds; (b) lent KRW 30 million with his/her attorney’s appointment fees on February 4, 2013; (c) lent KRW 35 million with his/her deposit funds for provisional seizure on March 5, 2013; and (d) the Defendant received a credit card loan with his/her name and used the credit card loan with the amount of KRW 280,000,000; and (d) around January 2013, the Defendant unpaid the remainder of KRW 870,000 for two months.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek to pay the Defendant the total amount of KRW 7,1750,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-4 as to KRW 30 million on April 5, 2012, the plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the defendant on April 5, 2012.

As to this, the Defendant alleged that there was no money to be paid any more than 52 million won by paying a sum of 2 million won to the Plaintiff from May 2012 to July 2014, 2014 by paying the monthly living expenses. However, it is insufficient to recognize only the entries in the evidence No. 6-1 to 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge only the record as to the part of KRW 3 million as indicated in subparagraph 2, and the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance with respect to the South Busan post office, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. The written evidence Nos. 3 and 6 regarding KRW 35 million and loan interest and KRW 2880,000 as of March 5, 2013 is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

With respect to the credit card loan theory of the plaintiff's assertion about KRW 870,00,00, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant agreed to pay the loan.