1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,300,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 30, 2014 to September 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in food, miscellaneous, and wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products under the trade name of C, and supplied D agricultural and fishery products and food miscellaneous supply from March 20, 2013 to September 30, 2013.

B. 1) From January 3, 2013 to February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied D goods equivalent to KRW 38,489,00 in total. On April 3, 2013, the Defendant, which was the captain of D, promised the Plaintiff to pay KRW 10 million out of KRW 38,489,000 to the Plaintiff by April 10, 2013, the remainder amount of KRW 28,489,00 in total, shall be paid from KRW 300,000 to the company account each month, and five million in total at the time of nonperformance.”

2) On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to receive payment on the same day and lent KRW 1 million to the Defendant.

3) Meanwhile, the Defendant repaid KRW 8,113,80 to the Plaintiff during the period from May 15, 2013 to July 15, 2013. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 31,375,200 (= KRW 38,489,000 - KRW 8,113,800) and damages for delay.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 31.3 million won among the above money and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 30, 2014, which was after the payment date of the above money, to September 18, 2014, which was served on the defendant from September 18, 2014, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant certificate of this case was prepared by the Plaintiff’s use of the Defendant’s will and should be revoked by means of deception, but only the statement of the evidence No. 1 is written.