1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 29,443,656 as well as 24% per annum from August 7, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, on August 24, 2015, remitted to the Defendant KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 25,000,000 on August 25, 2015, respectively, and, on August 25, 2015, remitted KRW 15,00,000 borrowed from C to the Defendant from the passbook in the name of C, without fixing the due date for repayment (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the instant loan and interest by July 18, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul witness C's partial testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. At the time of lending the instant loan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed on the interest rate of 2.5% per month, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,250,000 as interest only until September 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay interest or delay damages calculated by the rate of 24% per annum within the agreed rate from October 18, 2017 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of the instant loan and the interest or delay damages calculated by the rate of 50,000,000 won per annum.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is that the Defendant paid KRW 1,250,000 per month from September 2016 to September 2017, the principal amount of KRW 1,250,000 per month was determined and paid at will by the Defendant at KRW 250,000 per month, and there was no interest agreement at the time of borrowing the instant loan. The Defendant agreed to the interest rate at the rate of KRW 2.5% per month.

Even if it exceeds the Interest Limitation Act, it is null and void.

C. The following circumstances, i.e., the defendant's husband D, '50,000 won, '50,000 won,' which are revealed in the purport of the entire pleadings, are received in the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 and 7 as well as in part of the witness C's testimony.

The receipt dated April 24, 2016, stating "," was issued, and if the defendant alleged, only the remaining money was written as the receipt amount after deducting the money appropriated to the principal (total 6,000,000) from the original amount according to the above point of time.