A. The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 120 million, including KRW 30 million on May 25, 2009, KRW 30 million on August 25, 2009, KRW 30 million on November 25, 2009, KRW 30 million on November 25, 2009, and KRW 120 million on February 25, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On September 30, 2014, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

The defendant confirms that the loan of this case was borrowed from the plaintiff and confirms that he/she will repay the loan by November 30, 2014.

Preparation date: An originator on September 30, 2014: Defendant prosecution: Provided, That the interest rate shall be 26% per annum from the date of borrowing.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120 million and KRW 30 million from May 25, 2009, KRW 30 million from August 25, 2009, KRW 30 million from November 25, 2009, KRW 30 million from February 25, 2010 to October 24, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from February 25, 2010 to October 24, 2018, KRW 15% per annum as stipulated by the special law on the promotion, etc. of lawsuit until May 31, 2019, and KRW 12% per annum as stipulated by the special law on the promotion, etc. of lawsuit from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Claim 1) C (hereinafter “C”)

(2) The Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff. (2) The instant loan was a condition to suspend payment of KRW 1150 million in favor of the Defendant in the case of Gwangju District Court 2018Gahap5598, which brought the Defendant against D, etc., and the said condition was not fulfilled. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff.

3. This.