1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000, and its annual rate from June 11, 2003 to March 22, 2013, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the plaintiff lent 45 million won to the defendant on March 21, 2003 after the due date for repayment on June 10, 2003 that the plaintiff decided as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim was the plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties (the defendant was led to the confession of the above lending on the fourth due date, but there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no validity of revocation of the confession). On June 2003, the fact that the plaintiff received repayment of 10 million won as principal from the defendant around June 2003 is the plaintiff. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the amount of loans of 35 million won and the next day after the due date for repayment of the loans of this case from June 11, 2003 to June 22, 2013 as a copy of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay by 20% per annum.

2. As to the defendant's defense, in order to secure the payment of the above loan, the defendant issued a statement of the number of units per unit, which is the head of the Bank of Korea, (hereinafter "the number of units of this case") on June 10, 2003, and the date of payment, one sheet of the number of units per unit, which is the head of the Bank of Korea, (hereinafter "the number of units of this case"), so that the defendant will repay the above loan simultaneously with the refund of the number of units of this case.

In the event of existence of the existing underlying claim and the bill claim together, in principle, the obligor may oppose the obligee with a defense that the obligor would pay in redemption with the bill in principle when the obligee exercises the underlying claim.

However, the debtor's refusal of the repayment of the cause obligation on the ground that the bill does not have to be returned is intended to protect the debtor from the risk of double payment due to the performance of an unconditional cause obligation.