A. The Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to the Defendant on December 10, 2008, and on December 10, 2008, entered into a lease agreement with the lessor as a collateral for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,000,000,000 for the first floor office located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was owned by the Defendant, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that “the lessor shall pay to the lessee monthly interest on KRW 1,00,000,000.”

B. The Plaintiff leased money to Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) whose representative director was the Defendant. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. drafted a letter of commitment to confirm that the remaining claims of the Plaintiff against Nonparty Co., Ltd. were KRW 437,50,000 (hereinafter “the letter of commitment”) and prepared a letter of commitment to confirm that the remaining claims of the Plaintiff are KRW 437,50,00.

under section 437,500,000, a separate claim of KRW 50,000, which is a separate claim of KRW 437,500,00, the Defendant agreed to adjust the time of payment when the Defendant is unable to pay by December 31, 2016.

C. Around June 14, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the repayment of KRW 50 million by June 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, and it is recognized that the Defendant determined the “compact of the original Defendant’s intention to extend the period of repayment” as the period of non-determination by deciding to consult with the Plaintiff on the date of repayment in the event that the repayment is not made until December 31, 2016 at the time of the preparation of the instant written statement of performance.

However, since December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the content certification to the Defendant after setting the deadline and the Defendant did not respond thereto, and there is no dispute over the fact that the Defendant did not respond thereto, so the intention of the extension of the maturity between the original Defendant does not occur.