1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 18, 2017 to August 29, 2018, and the following.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, on June 30, 201, paid KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s passbook to C on June 30, 2014, and that on July 1, 2014, D, the Plaintiff’s branch, paid KRW 25,00,000 to C by way of payment of KRW 25,00,000,00 to the head of passbook, does not conflict between the parties.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not reduce the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense and the plaintiff's defense

A. The above loan obligation under the summary of the Defendant’s defense was fully repaid to the Plaintiff by way of paying the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 62,100,000,000.

B. Although the gist of the Plaintiff’s counterclaim was that the Plaintiff received money from the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant, it is nothing more than the Defendant’s obligation to borrow money from the Plaintiff.

C. Determination 1) On January 14, 2016, E paid to the Plaintiff on January 15, 2016 and on the 15th of the same month, it is insufficient to recognize that the said money was paid to the Plaintiff as the repayment of the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the said money was paid to the Plaintiff as the repayment of the Defendant’s debt. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the witness E’s testimony, the above money can be acknowledged as having been returned to the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. The Plaintiff recognized the fact that the Plaintiff received the total amount of KRW 30,000,000 from E on November 25, 2015 from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2015.