1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum from December 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

On August 31, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff and the due date on August 31, 2016, the certificate of borrowing that would naturally lose the benefit of the due date (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing of this case”) when the payment of interest is delayed at least once.

The defendant shall pay only interest at the rate of three months until November 30, 2016, and shall not pay interest thereafter.

【In the event that there exists no dispute, Gap 1’s evidence, Eul 4’s disposition document, and the purport of the entire pleadings are deemed to be genuine, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intention as stated in the contents, unless there is any counter-proof which clearly and acceptable to deny the contents.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Da16601 delivered on February 10, 1995). Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the loan certificate of this case, which is a disposal document, was duly established, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay according to the agreed rate of 18% per annum from December 1, 2016, which is the date following the date of final interest payment, on the loan certificate of this case, and on this basis, the amount of KRW 30 million based on the loan certificate of this case.

In the Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s argument, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million out of KRW 50 million, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 30 million. On the contrary, the Defendant was obligated to pay the deposit amount after giving priority to C, and on the contrary, set up and set up a notarial deed of KRW 40 million to C.

Ultimately, upon C’s request, the Defendant prepared the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff, and, upon paying interest to the Plaintiff based on the instant loan certificate, agreed to settle the accounts with C with the payment of the fraternity.

However, C was deceased, and D, the heir of C, based on the above notarial deed, seized and collected a collection order against the defendant.