A. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers) and the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim, the following facts are recognized:

On March 24, 2009, the Plaintiff set 30,000,000 won to the Defendant at the agreed interest rate of 20% per annum.

The defendant did not repay the above loan obligations until January 2017.

Accordingly, on January 24, 2017, the Defendant prepared and supplemented the “written confirmation of the fact (such as borrowing and interest payment)” (hereinafter “written confirmation”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall repay the total amount of KRW 87,000,000 to the Plaintiff by October 30, 2017” (hereinafter “written confirmation”).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 87,000,000 and the delayed damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendant: (a) prepared the instant confirmation document; and (b) paid KRW 4,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

The argument is asserted.

According to the purport of the whole theory on the entry and change in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant is recognized to have discharged KRW 2,00,000 on September 26, 2017, and KRW 2,000,000 on March 20, 2018.

If the above repayment is appropriated for the repayment in the order of interest (additional damages) and principal pursuant to Articles 477 and 479 of the Civil Act, 2,00,000 won repaid on September 26, 2017, which is prior to the due date, shall be appropriated for the principal, and 2,000,000 won repaid on March 20, 2018, which is prior to the due date, shall be appropriated for the remainder principal amount of 85,00,000 won [=87,00,000 won - 2,00,000 won - 360,000 won, which is prior to the due date, from November 1, 2017 to March 20, 2018] as calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act.

(c)

According to the theory of the lawsuit, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 84,630,136 won (=85,00,000 won - 369,864 won) and to the plaintiff 5% per annum under the Civil Act until March 3, 2021, which is the date of the judgment of this case where it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform from March 21, 2018.