1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 14, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. The defendant's defense prior to the merits is the Busan District Court having jurisdiction over the domicile of the defendant, and thus, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is a lawsuit seeking monetary payment by the plaintiff's assertion itself, and since the obligation to pay money is the domicile of the plaintiff, the lawsuit of this case has jurisdiction over the court having jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In full view of the facts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Defendant on December 8, 2004, taking into account the following facts: (a) the determination on the cause of the claim was examined; (b) there was no dispute or no clear dispute; and (c) the entire purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 35 million to the Defendant on December 8, 2004; and (d) on April 12, 2015, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) stating that “the amount of KRW 35 million is preferentially repaid and the corresponding old-end interest (it is necessary to confirm the details of the passbook) shall be preserved at an intentional level under consultation; and (e) thereafter, the Defendant paid KRW 1 million interest on April 17, 2015, and interest KRW 1 million interest on February 1, 2016, respectively.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 35 million and its delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion is sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's payment of money to the defendant, but this was not a loan, but a loan, and the loan certificate of this case was formally made for the purpose of showing the plaintiff's husband's husband at the plaintiff's request, and it is not possible to respond to the plaintiff's claim seeking monetary payment based on the above loan certificate. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge this only with the statement of No. 1, and evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.