1. Based on the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff added the selective claim in this Court.

1. Evidence / [Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 2 and 3, evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, 4, 6-12, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 4, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. From around 1994 to 2006, the Defendant lent funds to the Plaintiff by means of remitting funds to the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name several times.

B. From around 1994 to 2012, the Plaintiff repaid its debt borrowed to the Defendant by remitting it to the bank account in the name of the Defendant or the Defendant’s child over several occasions.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. As to the claim on the principal claim (the existence of loan claims against the plaintiff for the defendant)

B. (i) The amount loaned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff 【The amount repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant ? the extinctive prescription defense

3. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the principal claim (the plaintiff's assertion) / The plaintiff lent a sum of KRW 123,460,000 as shown in the separate sheet between November 19, 2003 and December 27, 2012 to the defendant, as shown in the separate sheet, by remitting it to the bank account, and thereafter, the defendant was paid a total of KRW 123,460,000 on April 8, 2005, KRW 100,000 on June 30, 2006, KRW 100,000 on July 29, 2006, KRW 200,000 on July 31, 2006, KRW 200,000 on July 31, 2006, KRW 150,000 on August 9, 206, KRW 2005,050 on the loan and delay damages (i.e., the loan amount).

[Dissentings by the Defendant] The Defendant did not borrow funds from the Plaintiff, and the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is not paid as a loan, but rather paid to the Defendant in order to repay the Plaintiff’s loan obligations to the Defendant.

[Judgment] However, evidence (Evidence No. 1-2, 2, 3, A-2, 3, and evidence No. 4-1, 2-2) can be acknowledged based on the whole purport of the pleading, i.e., the following circumstances, i., the Plaintiff.