On December 1, 2013, the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) prepared a payment note with the effect that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 94,810,000 of the equipment cost to the Plaintiff by December 30, 2013, and shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from the day after the due date if the payment is not made by the aforementioned date (hereinafter “first letter”).

On January 1, 2014, the Defendant drafted and issued to the Plaintiff a separate letter of payment with the same content as the foregoing (However, the due date is January 30, 2014) (hereinafter “instant second letter”) and the same statement of payment with the same content as the due date until March 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant third letter”) around February 10, 2014.

On the other hand, the third letter of this case includes "C: 3:1.2 million won, D: 4.4 million won, A: 60,210,00 won, which includes 22.0 million won, of road sites." The third letter of this case includes the lower court's fact that there is no dispute [based on recognition], and each statement in Gap 1 or 11 (including the number of pages), including the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant filed a damages for delay from March 26, 2014, which is the day following the due date specified in the third letter of claim in this case (the plaintiff filed a damages for delay from December 31, 2013, which is the day following the due date specified in the third letter of claim in this case, although it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff had delayed the due date through the second and third forms of the third forms of claims in this case, and thus, the defendant shall pay the damages for delay from the next day following the due date specified in the third letter of claim in this case) to the plaintiff in full.