A. From 2013 to 2013, the Defendant attracting customers, and brought about 43% of the basic drinking value out of the sales amount to 1,100,000 won, and operated a type of business liable for credit sales in the event of credit sales.

B. At around 2016, the Defendant: (a) worked for approximately six months at the public entertainment bar called “C”; (b) continued the Plaintiff’s work at the public entertainment bar in December 2016 with the Plaintiff’s work at the public entertainment bar; and (c) continued the public entertainment day.

C. On February 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of non-performance, stating that “150,000,000 won was clearly borrowed from you; (b) the obligation is not repaid as follows; (c) upon the obligee’s demand for reimbursement, the obligor shall immediately pay the loan; and (d) the principal and interest shall be repaid only upon the obligee’s demand for reimbursement. The principal and interest shall be repaid at the obligee’s address. The repayment of the principal and interest shall be paid at the obligee’s address, and shall be responsible for all legal and criminal responsibilities

hereinafter referred to as "the statement of payment in this case"

(D) Since April 5, 2017, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 in total, including KRW 5,000,000 on April 5, 2017, KRW 15,000,00 on April 17, 2017, and KRW 5,000,000 on May 1, 2017, as the repayment of the obligation under the instant payment note. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Defendant paid KRW 25,00,00 for the Plaintiff as the repayment of the obligation pursuant to the instant payment note.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged in the 1st party's assertion as to the cause of the claim, that the defendant paid 150,000,000 won to the defendant's business place prior to the clerical error as D danran bar before the clerical error was lent to the defendant by the plaintiff on behalf of the previous business place, and in the process, the defendant prepared the letter of payment in this case, so the defendant must pay the obligation under the letter of payment.

In this regard, the defendant does not have any basis to confirm the amount of the defendant's credit payment obligation.