1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2:

On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150 million to the Defendant.

B. On February 17, 2016, the original copy of the instant payment order seeking the return of the Plaintiff’s loan reaches the Defendant.

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 150 million and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from February 18, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the due date has not yet arrived since the Defendant: (a) set up a right to collateral security of KRW 500 million with the maximum debt amount in the Plaintiff’s future with respect to Nos. 401 through 405, and 501 through 505 of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City building, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; and (b) agreed to

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant created the right to collateral security of KRW 500 million for the Plaintiff and Nonparty D around June 26, 2015. However, the date of concluding the loan for consumption of money of this case was July 4, 2014; the Defendant’s establishment of collateral security was made on June 25, 2015; and the Defendant’s establishment of collateral security was made on June 25, 2015; and the establishment of collateral security was made only for securing the return of the principal and interest of the loan because the Defendant failed to pay the agreed interest, and the due date was deferred. Thus, the payment order period for repayment seeking the return of loan from the Plaintiff was due under the loan contract of this case. Accordingly, the above assertion is not accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.