A. On March 8, 1995, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On August 30, 2014, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on March 8, 1995, and that “the Defendant shall pay, under the good faith principle, interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the principal until December 31, 2015, including interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the principal, and shall pay, if not, delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

On March 21, 2015, the Defendant repaid KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the agreement of this case was made in a state of chilling the defendant's disturbance, such as that it was null and void under Article 104 of the Civil Act, or that it was made in a state of chilling the plaintiff's chilling, and that it constitutes a declaration of intention by coercion. The defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to support the above assertion that the defendant was made by mistake or inexperience at the time of the agreement of this case, or that the defendant was made by duress, and there is no evidence to support the above argument that the defendant's claim was extinguished by the statute of limitations. Thus, the loan of this case was made after the lapse of 10 years from March 8, 195, which was the date of the loan of this case. It is clear that the period of extinctive prescription expired by the passage of March 8, 2005.

However, the defendant is in this case.