A. On May 11, 2010, the Defendant: (a) shipped 2 10,760,000 of the sales proceeds after receiving KRW 10,760,000 from the Plaintiff’s own farm while the Plaintiff purchased and entrusted 30 mar from C; and (b) did not return it to the Plaintiff.

B. Also, the Defendant’s KRW 9,240,000 from the Plaintiff on May 11, 2010, and the same year

5. 19. gold 10,000,000 won was borrowed.

C. Accordingly, on May 20, 2010, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a letter of credit that the Plaintiff would return the unpaid sales proceeds and the borrowed amount to KRW 30,00,000 (= KRW 10,760,000, KRW 9,240,000, KRW 10,000) with the monthly interest by July 20, 2010, along with the monthly interest.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15,642,739 won (= 30 million won x 0.12x (4126/365)) calculated at the statutory rate of 45,642,739 won plus 45,642,739 won from May 21, 2010 to September 23, 2014, which is the day following the day on which the above loan certificate was drawn up to September 23, 2014, which is the day following the day on which the plaintiff requested for payment of KRW 30,00,000 of the borrowed principal, to the plaintiff as 20% per annum from October 7, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of interest rate of 15% from the day following the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff arbitrarily stated the above loan certificate (Evidence A No. 1) and the debtor's personal information and name at the upper end and lower end of the loan certificate, and there was no unmanned seal but there was no fact that the interest rate, date of preparation, and the due date of payment were stated, and that the above loan certificate was altered.

However, as long as the defendant recognized that he was signing or stamped on the above loan certificate, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established.