(a) 980,00,000 won and 15% per annum for them from November 22, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

A. The defendant's signature stated in Gap evidence No. 2 (the defendant's signature stated in Gap evidence No. 2 (each note) was forged by the plaintiff, etc., but considering the result of appraiser D's written appraisal and the whole purport of oral argument, it can be recognized that the defendant's signature stated in Gap evidence No. 2 (each note) is written by the defendant himself, and thus, the defendant's assertion of forgery is not accepted) and the whole purport of oral argument, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to pay at least 10,000 US dollars to the plaintiff on April 25, 2006 for monthly living expenses, etc.

B. Accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant’s claim: ① KRW 980 million (i.e., KRW 10 million (i., the period from May 1, 2006 to April 31, 201) should be based on the standard for converting the foreign exchange price as at the time of the closing of argument at the fact-finding court as at the time of the obligor’s actual performance into Korean currency (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da2147, Mar. 12, 1991); and the standard ratio of transaction of USD 1,145.00 as of November 4, 2016, the date of closing of argument, to KRW 1,145.00. 】 The obligation to pay damages for delay calculated from May 1, 2006 to April 31, 2015; ② the obligation to pay damages for delay from KRW 1,550,000,000 per annum from November 2, 15.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.