1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 56,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 16, 2015 to the date of full payment.

On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to refund KRW 30 million from the Defendant until November 3, 2015; KRW 20,000,000 on October 26, 2015; KRW 50,000,000 on July 27, 200; and KRW 88,00,000 on August 28, 2015; and thereafter, on October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to refund KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant until November 9, 2015; and the remaining balance to the Plaintiff by November 9, 2015. According to the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 56,00,00,00 as the Plaintiff seeks within the scope of the above loan, and at the rate of KRW 15,15,000,00 on the next day after the due date.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is unfair since the defendant repaid the total of KRW 3,000,000 on December 2, 2015, and KRW 5,000,000 on January 7, 2016.

On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 56,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 7,000,000 on November 4, 2015, and KRW 3,000,000 on December 2, 2015, and KRW 2,000,000 on January 7, 2016, and KRW 32,00,000 on May 7, 2016, while the Plaintiff received reimbursement. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since all of the details of reimbursement asserted by the Defendant are recognized to have received reimbursement by the Plaintiff and are related to the part other than the claim in this case.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid additional KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff on May 7, 2016 when filing an application for the resumption of pleadings after the closure of pleadings in the instant case. However, on May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the date for pleading and stated that the Defendant repaid KRW 10,00,000 on May 7, 2016, as alleged by the Defendant, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, and reduced the claim corresponding thereto. The Defendant’s argument above is without merit, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case is with merit, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.