1. The defendant shall pay 60 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from May 2, 2003 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts are based on an agreement between the defendant and the defendant on March 8, 2003 that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant who operates a fish fishing vessel C, to determine the principal borrowed by the defendant as KRW 60 million, the interest rate of KRW 3% per month, and the payment period as of December 31, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant agreement") may be recognized, either there is no dispute between the parties, or there is no proof between the parties, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1, No. 2-2.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant shall be deemed to have filed a claim with the plaintiff for the payment of interest amounting to KRW 60 million which was settled with the borrowed principal under the agreement of this case and the interest or interest interest accrued from May 2, 2003 to the date of full payment, which was calculated at the rate of KRW 20 million per annum for the plaintiff within the scope of the above agreed interest rate from May 2, 2003 to the date of full payment, as seen in Paragraph B-2 below, for the plaintiff's payment of interest amounting to KRW 5 million per annum from the defendant around October 2, 2007. Considering the above, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have received the claim for the payment of interest amounting to KRW 5 million from May 2, 2003. However, the defendant shall not be deemed to have filed a claim with the plaintiff for the payment of the loan amount of KRW 1.3 million by deducting KRW 5 million from the expiration of prescription period of KRW 1.3 million with the plaintiff's claim for payment of KRW 1.5 million

However, as seen in paragraph (2) below, the plaintiff is the person to whom part of the interest obligation under the agreement of this case was paid. Thus, the defendant's defense of repayment is justified within the above scope, and the remainder of the defense of repayment is justified.