A. On February 9, 1996, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 55 million to the Defendant.

B. On March 3, 199, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a letter of statement to the effect that “ By March 30, 1999, the Defendant will partially repay the interest of KRW 55 million and the interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month after February 9, 1996.”

C. After that, until February 6, 2003, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 55 million.

On February 6, 2003, the plaintiff and the defendant stated that 35 million won interest rate shall be 10.5% per annum, and 10.5% due date for payment shall be fixed and lent to the defendant on June 30, 2004, 'the certificate of fairness of this case'.

- - - - - having no dispute over the grounds for recognition, A No. 1,

6. Entry of the evidence of subparagraph 7 and that of subparagraph 3 above; and

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the assertion is that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to receive KRW 35 million, which was paid the principal of KRW 55 million lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, but did not receive interest KRW 45 million, and thus, the Plaintiff prepared the instant Notarial Deed in agreement with the Defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the amount of 55 million won as principal invested in the defendant did not have a duty to repay it, but it was repaid, and that the notarial deed of this case was prepared by the plaintiff only with the showing of arbitra-gun, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant prepared a letter to the Plaintiff that he would pay interest of KRW 1.5% per month on the principal amounting to KRW 55 million, and the Defendant made a statement that he paid only the principal, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant notarial deed was prepared for the repayment of interest of KRW 35 million, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence suggesting that the instant notarial deed was prepared for the purpose of showing that the Plaintiff had been prepared for the purpose of showing that the notarial deed was prepared for the Plaintiff without having to bear any substantial liability as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant.