1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,960,552 as well as KRW 20,50,000 among them, from October 6, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 22,300,000 from the Plaintiff on the following terms:

1) The expiry date of the loan period: The rate of interest rate of 6.2% per annum: 7% per annum if the interest rate is less than 3 months in arrears; 8% per annum if the interest rate is more than 3 months in arrears; 9% per annum if the interest rate is more than 3 months in arrears but not more than 6 months in arrears; and 9% per annum if the interest rate is more than 6 months in arrears period: the highest interest rate shall be 17% per annum; 4% per annum; principal and interest shall be repaid in installments on the 22th day of each month;

B. However, on July 22, 2015, the Defendant’s period of repayment under the initial agreement is the same.

As seen in this paragraph, according to the statement of Gap's evidence No. 2 (In Credit Account Inquiry Table) on January 22, 2015, the above period of repayment seems to have been extended on January 22, 2016.

Finally, after making installment payments to the Plaintiff, the above loans were not repaid.

C. As of October 5, 2015, the principal and interest of the Defendant’s loan obligations as of October 5, 2015 are KRW 20,960,552 in total (i.e., principal amount of KRW 20,50,000 and delay damages amount of KRW 460,552 in total). The Defendant’s interest rate of delay damages for the above loan obligations is 1

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by applying the rate of 15% per annum to the agreed delay damages rate of KRW 20,960,552 with respect to the principal and interest of the above loan obligation as well as KRW 20,50,000 from October 6, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.