1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings, the defendant, on October 11, 2013, may recognize the fact that the defendant prepared and completed the statement of settlement of payment (Evidence No. 1-5 of the Evidence No. 1) with the purport that the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff in relation between the original defendant and the plaintiff is KRW 15 million.

Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from November 26, 2014 to the day of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 26, 2014, after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to

2. As to this, the defendant argues that the above 15 million won obligation is a debt with respect to a bill issued by the non-party C, and the defendant is not liable for its repayment, and that it is not liable for its repayment. However, as long as the defendant made a settlement agreement with its own debt amounting to KRW 15 million as above, it shall follow the above agreement. Thus, unless there is no proof that the above settlement agreement can be cancelled due to deception or mistake, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

Furthermore, even if examining further, C’s payment of a promissory note of KRW 60 million with the Plaintiff’s face value as of November 4, 201 as of March 31, 201, which was issued as of March 31, 2012 by the Plaintiff and was paid KRW 28 million after deducting KRW 2 million with the advance interest at the discount of the Plaintiff, but the said promissory note was in default. The fact that the said promissory note was settled together, including the above discount of the said promissory note at the time of the settlement agreement, can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each entry in the evidence No. 1-5 and the purport of the entire pleadings. However, according to each of the above evidence, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff discounted the said promissory note to C at KRW 28 million after deducting KRW 2 million with the advance interest and the said discount of the said promissory note from the Plaintiff. However, the payment of the said promissory note was after March 31, 2012.