1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,382,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 21, 2012 to August 27, 2015.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff was found to have completed fishing net repair, etc. equivalent to KRW 35,382,00,000, in total, from the defendant's request for fishing net repair until June 20, 2012. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was paid 25,382,000, in terms of repayment from the defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,382,000 ( = 35,382,00,000 - 10,0000) and its amount from June 21, 2012 to August 27, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to 35,382,000,000 per annum from the day after the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, to September 30, 2015.

The defendant argued that the repair cost was paid in full by paying the repair cost to the plaintiff at each repair time, on condition that the repair cost would not be repaired if the repair cost exceeds one million won, but the repair cost was paid every time. Finally, on April 8, 2013, the defendant argued that all of the repair cost was paid by paying the cost of KRW 10 million. However, there was the same condition.

The defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to support that the repair cost has been fully repaid.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.