1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from November 11, 2013 to May 11, 2017.

1. The fact that the Defendant, around July 16, 2013, prepared and delivered a letter of payment stating that “I, without any reason, pay in the amount of KRW 100 million and the above amount, will pay in the payment key without delay until November 10, 2013” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) to the Plaintiff is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entry in the evidence No. 6 and the entire pleadings.

Therefore, from November 11, 2013, the day following the due date for repayment of each of the instant notes to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until May 11, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) although the Plaintiff did not actually borrow money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate several times; (b) however, despite the fact that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to borrow money to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could have paid KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff forced the Defendant to prepare the instant letter of claim and prepared it on July 2013; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant prepared the instant statement by the Plaintiff’s coercion, and the time when the Defendant entered in the evidence No. 1 of this case transfers KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff is October 15, 2007, and six years prior to the date of preparation of the instant statement. It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant statement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.