“The fact that a loan certificate was drawn up is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the purport of Gap’s statement and the entire argument as to Gap’s statement Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff has received reimbursement of KRW 17,00,000 out of the above money.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,00,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act and 15% per annum as they seek from August 31, 2014 to August 16, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from August 31, 2014, which is the day following the date of repayment of the contract.

With regard to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was supplied with scrap metal as the cycle and that the price was paid in advance.

The Defendants planned the Plaintiff to remove the buildings, and would supply the scrap metal arising from the removal work, so there is no dispute between the parties to the claim that KRW 50,00,000 should be paid in advance. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants supplied the scrap metal to the Plaintiff even after the lapse of two years from the due date specified in the above loan certificate, and as long as the Defendants recognized the obligation to pay the said money, there was a contract for the supply of scrap metal, as alleged by the Defendants.

The above contract was rescinded by agreement between the parties, so the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.