(a) Of KRW 13,00,000 and its weight, (1) 5,500,000 shall be from March 11, 2017 to (2) 500.

A. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, lent apartment units owned by the Plaintiff as collateral to the Defendant. The Plaintiff leased KRW 90 million to the Defendant.

B. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of acceptance of the performance of the said loan (Evidence A1) with the following content.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Circumstances in which a written statement of performance is prepared;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received interest on the loan amounting to KRW 1,100,000 per month plus the interest on the Plaintiff’s share in the loan amounting to KRW 90,000,000 per month from the Defendant. Around that time, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the interest amounting to KRW 9,000,000 per month from June 2014 by October 31, 2015, and requested the Defendant to pay the loan principal amounting to KRW 90,000,000 per month. The Defendant complaining of the shortage of the loan amounting to the Defendant on November 4, 2015, and the interest amounting to KRW 90,00,000,000 from the loan amounting to KRW 90,00,000 per month was paid in full until December 31, 202.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that: (a) performed approximately KRW 60 million of the leased principal until November 4, 2015, which was written a written rejection of performance of the obligation; and (b) written out by agreement to pay the remaining principal and interest by December 31, 2020.

C. (1) Determination (1) The fact that the Defendant paid 1.1 million won each month to the Plaintiff from March 2012 to June 2014, which was the following month, and the fact that the Defendant paid 900,000 won each month to the Plaintiff from July 2014 to October 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the above amounts is interest on KRW 90 million, whereas the Defendant asserts that each of the above amounts is appropriated for the repayment of the principal and interest on the loan, despite the repeated statement of this court, it is nothing more than the statement of how each of the above amounts is appropriated.