1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 70,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 25, 2012 to March 12, 2015.

1. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 80,00 to the Defendant on or around December 2011, and the Plaintiff urged repayment of the above loan several times, and the Defendant prepared a letter of undertaking stating that “I, on or before October 25, 2012, undertake to pay the Plaintiff KRW 80,000,000,000, employed and leased in the gas tank Korea,” is not in dispute between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence A1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a loan of KRW 70 million (=80,000 - KRW 10,000,000 where the plaintiff was paid due) and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. In this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s spouse B, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was finalized on October 28, 2014: (a) the decision of recommending the settlement of “B to transfer to the Plaintiff the claim for the return of the lease deposit held by the Plaintiff as the lessee of the Kuju-si apartment No. 101, 403 apartment; and (b) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was realized by the said decision of recommending settlement.

B. In a case where a judgment creditor receives another claim from the debtor in relation to the repayment of the obligation, it is presumed that the claim is transferred by means of a security for the repayment of the obligation or by the repayment method, barring special circumstances, and it is not deemed that the transfer of the obligation is substituted for the repayment of the obligation, and therefore, the original claim cannot be deemed extinguished if the assignment of the obligation is transferred, and the obligee is exempted from the obligation within the scope of the obligor’s repayment by receiving the claim transferred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1660, Dec. 22, 1995). According to the above legal principle, even if the Plaintiff received the claim from the Defendant’s spouse in relation to the repayment of the obligation by the Defendant