A. In addition to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the facts that the plaintiff and his/her spouse agreed to the interest rate of 2% per month while lending 20 million won to the defendant and his/her spouse on January 11, 2010, 30 million won on September 16, 2010, and 5 million won on November 10, 201 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") (the defendant's assertion that denies the loan itself from the plaintiff is not accepted), and the plaintiff reduced the interest rate of the loan of this case on December 16, 201, as at November 20, 201, it is recognized that the balance of the principal of the loan of this case was 149,815,757.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination (1) asserts that, on May 20, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay the principal of the instant loan in three million won each month from May 20, 2017 to the 20th day of each month, and that, in the event of three times of nonperformance, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the interest or interest in arrears calculated at the rate of 2% per month, and that the Defendant paid the said KRW 149,815,757 and the interest or interest delay damages calculated at the rate of 1% per month from November 20, 2014 to July 20, 2017 and 2% per month from the following day to the date of full payment.

(2) According to the records of evidence No. 5, it is deemed that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with C on May 4, 2017, as alleged above, but such facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the agreement had been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated by applying the agreed interest rate of 12% per annum from April 10, 2018, which is the date the instant judgment was rendered, and the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute on the existence and scope of the obligation to perform the obligation.