1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 26, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Principal: 50 million won;

2. Date of repayment: February 25, 2018 (10 installment repayments);

3. Interest: 5% per annum.

4. Time of payment of interest: From May 2017, the obligor to pay aggregate on the 25th day of the principal installment on the 25th day of each month, borrowed the said money without any framework under the said condition, and is to faithfully perform the obligation.

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”); on the same day, the Defendant prepared and issued the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificates”) to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant indicated that “D”, an employee of the Defendant Company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) operated by the Defendant, as the Defendant’s name or “** (* (*) (*) interest”, and paid all of them to the Plaintiff by having the Plaintiff transfer the interest or delay damages until August 25, 2019 on the instant loan amount of KRW 5 million out of the principal amount of the instant loan.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, 10, Eul's evidence Nos. 5 through 9 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the facts of the above recognition as to the ground for the claim as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from August 26, 2019 to the day following the day when the defendant paid interest or delay damages to the plaintiff (=5 million won for the loan of this case - five million won which the plaintiff was already paid) and the delay damages calculated by the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day after the defendant paid the interest or delay damages to the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's argument is that the loan of this case was borrowed from the plaintiff to be used by the defendant, not the defendant's individual, and the loan certificate was also prepared by the defendant as the representative of C.

Therefore, the obligor of the instant loan obligation is not the Defendant but C. Even if the Defendant’s domestic obligation is the Defendant, C.