1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 17,593,172 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from June 12, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant twice as indicated below.

There is no agreement that there is no time limit for repayment of KRW 6,00,000,000 on February 1, 2013 of the date of the second loan lending on January 17, 2013, and there is no agreement that there is no time limit for repayment of KRW 20,000,000.

B. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 on April 8, 2016, and KRW 16,000,000 on September 30, 2016, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as to the cause of the claim, is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant on April 8, 2016, and KRW 16,00,000 on September 30, 2016, and sought reimbursement for the balance after appropriating each of the aforementioned reimbursement to the Defendant for the first and second loans and for delay damages.

On the other hand, there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed or designated the appropriation method at the time of the above repayment, and both the first and second loans have no fixed time of payment, and the second loans have no interest rate of 2% per month and there are more repayment profits than the first loan without interest agreement. Accordingly, the first and second loans should be appropriated in the order of the principal of the second loans, the second and second loans, and the first loans shall be appropriated in accordance with the method of statutory appropriation for payment under Article 477 subparagraph 2 of Article 477 and Article 479 of the Civil Act.

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to deem that no delay damages for the first loan has occurred at the time of the payment of each of the above amounts, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the first loan prior to the institution of the instant lawsuit, that the monetary loan for consumption without the due date has to lapse from the highest date (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act).

If each of the above repayment amounts is appropriated by the above method, the defendant's obligation is the principal of the first loan as of September 30, 2016, as shown in the attached Table, and the second loan principal as of September 30, 201.