1. The defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from September 30, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, who was the representative director of the construction company, issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 60 million on September 20, 2005 to the plaintiff on October 20, 2005. The plaintiff, on February 8, 2007, received a provisional attachment decision (Ywon District Court 2007Kadan682) as to the whole building (6 households) holding 1/2 shares by taking the claim amount of KRW 60 million on February 8, 2007. In addition, it can be recognized that the plaintiff participated in the procedure for compulsory auction that commenced each of the above provisionally seized real estate on November 1, 2010 and made a demand for distribution.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., if the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay more than twice the principal as interest as alleged by the Defendant, it would not have easily made a promissory note to the effect that the Defendant would have received such a promissory note. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not raise any specific objection in the real estate provisional seizure procedure or distribution procedure based on the above promissory note, and the Plaintiff asserts that the leased principal is KRW 50 million out of the above promissory note amount, and the Defendant asserts that the said promissory note includes interest, and that the interval between the issue date of the promissory note and the payment date is not long as one month, the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 50 million to the Defendant as of September 20, 2005 cannot be recognized otherwise, and there is no counter-proof.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant merely borrowed 20 million won, and without any choice, a promissory note which causes 60 million won at par value by threatening another person to prepare a promissory note which causes 60 million won for the plaintiff's mobilization.