A. On May 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24 million to C for the purchase of membership for the registered container. However, as C did not purchase the container, the Plaintiff filed a complaint under suspicion of fraud.

B. On July 11, 2013, the Defendant, known to C, prepared a letter of undertaking to perform the obligation to repay the obligation to the Plaintiff by July 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Plaintiff withdrawn the Plaintiff’s complaint.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 24 million agreed upon and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum from July 12, 2014 to February 13, 2015, the day following the due date for payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant did not receive any money from the Plaintiff, and the obligation performance guarantee was made on the ground that it was made on the condition that C is not bound by the Plaintiff, and thus, C is bound by C, the Defendant’s claim cannot be complied with. 2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant agreement was made up on the part of the Plaintiff, and considering that the Defendant took over the obligation of C through the instant agreement, the instant agreement cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that there was no money actually received from the Plaintiff.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement of this case was formed on a conditional basis as alleged by the defendant.

3. Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.