1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around June 2010, the Defendant was liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million and damages for delay, on the ground that (b) around June 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000 and KRW 20 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and/or 20,000,0000 won were not paid to the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Plaintiff money equivalent to KRW 0.5% of the monthly loan, which was paid to a third party by the Plaintiff as a broker.

2. On June 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that “where the Plaintiff acted as a broker for a loan to a third party, the amount equivalent to 3% of the monthly loan amount shall be paid by the third party and the amount equivalent to 2.5% of the monthly loan amount shall be paid to the Plaintiff.” However, there is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff would be the broker for the loan to the Defendant from June 2010 to December 2010. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the assertion that the intermediary fee to be paid by the Defendant is KRW 20,000,000,000.

[On the other hand, there is res judicata effect on the amount set up against a set-off regardless of whether it is accepted or not (Article 216(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 499 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis in the case of a set-off, so many automatic claims are applied mutatis mutandis under Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Act, and where there are multiple automatic claims and the principal and interest of multiple claims fall short of the total amount of principal and interest of the automatic claims, the creditor of the automatic claim can designate the automatic claim subject to set-off, and then, the automatic claim