A. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the due date for payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant on August 30, 2013; and (b) lent the amount at 15% per annum.

B. On May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant KRW 3 million on each 15th day of May, 2013, and leased interest at KRW 600,000 per month.

C. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the due date for repayment of KRW 40 million to the Defendant on October 30, 2013; and (b) lent the amount at 15% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (in the case of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, since the defendant recognizes the fact that the debtor recorded the debtor's disturbance and the amount, etc., it can be recognized as the establishment of the petition), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 1.2 million won the remainder after deducting 8.8 million won from the total amount of the borrowed amount of KRW 11.1 million, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of KRW 1.5 million (or an agreement or interest rate of KRW 1.8 million from June 16, 2014, which is the date following the date of completion of installment payments, to the Plaintiff with respect to the loans of KRW 70 million (the total amount of loans of March 1, 2013 and loans of June 12, 2013), which is the date of commencement of payment, sought by the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24880, Nov. 1, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 25705, May 15, 2013>

3. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant did not borrow KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on March 1, 2013 and KRW 40 million on June 12, 2013, and each of the loan certificates (Evidence A 1 and 2) was prepared by means of a false competitive agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in preparation for a dispute with the Plaintiff. However, in light of the description of the evidence No. 6, it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion solely by the statement of evidence No. 1 and 2 and the testimony of the witness C, so the above assertion is without merit.

Although the defendant asserts that the defendant and C have repaid all the loans of KRW 40 million on May 15, 2013, the testimony of the witness C alone is recognized.