1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum from April 23, 2009 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 24, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the total sum of KRW 60 million to the Defendant C’s account, the wife of Defendant B, over this title.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s letter of undertaking under the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, which certified by the notary public from Law Firm D to No. 525 in 2012, bear interest of 1.5% per month (i.e., 18% per annum) due to the Plaintiff’s failure to recover the amount of 60 million won at the time originally scheduled by the Plaintiff, and the purport of Defendant B’s failure to recover the land in Gangnam-si by the end of 2012, stating that the Plaintiff will be liable with the wife if it is impossible for Defendant B

(hereinafter referred to as “instant undertaking”). 【No dispute exists concerning the basis of recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from April 23, 2009 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

However, in the case of Defendant C, there is no direct preparation or certification of the letter of undertaking, and only the unilateral promise of Defendant B does not lead to the legal liability of Defendant C.

In addition, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C has the obligation to pay the above 60 million won.

The plaintiff's claim for this part shall not be accepted.

3. Defendant B’s assertion that there was no fact that Defendant B prepared the instant undertaking, but it is presumed that Defendant B was written as part of the deed signed by a notary public on the ground that the said undertaking became an attorney-at-law in charge of authentication.

In addition, Defendant B asserts to the effect that the above KRW 60 million is a problem for resolving with Nonparty E, who is the Plaintiff’s birth, but the instant promise was made in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant B as seen earlier, and on March 18, 2009, it is deemed that the said Defendant’s preparation is appropriate.