1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on June 23, 2006, ② KRW 20,000,000 on October 24, 2006, ③ December 28, 2006, ④ KRW 20,000,000 on June 19, 207, ⑤ KRW 5,000,000 on December 26, 2007, and KRW 105,000,000 on total (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,00 on July 21, 2006, ② KRW 300,000 on August 23, 2006, ③ KRW 300,000 on September 26, 2006, ④ KRW 300,000 on October 17, 206, ⑤ KRW 50,000 on November 206, 206, ⑤ KRW 50,000 on December 50, 200 on December 21, 2006, KRW 70,000 on January 19, 200, and KRW 80,000 on January 31, 2007, KRW 300,750 on January 37, 2007, and KRW 00.

C. On October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would repay the instant loan by October 28, 2016, and around that time, the Defendant reached a content-certified mail.

C claiming that the instant loan was actually used, on October 21, 2016, remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account from the account in the name of E, the same student.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 105,000,000 and damages for delay from October 29, 2016, which is the day following the date on which the Plaintiff notified the return within a reasonable time specified by the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that he agreed to receive interest rate of 1% per month from the Defendant, but the testimony of the first instance court witness C alone is insufficient to prove that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the interest rate of 1% per month, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to this, the Defendant lent money to C by transferring money from the Plaintiff’s husband’s account to the Defendant’s account from the Plaintiff’s account. Thus, D and C are parties to a monetary loan agreement, and the Defendant is the debtor on the instant loan.