1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,20,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 23, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the plaintiff lent money several times from May 2001 to May 2005 to the defendant, and the defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) that the plaintiff shall pay 45 million won in installments each month to the plaintiff on March 28, 2010. The plaintiff was paid 8.8 million won out of the above loan by the defendant, and the statement No. 3 alone lacks counter-proofs.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of 36.2 million won (=45 million won - 8.8 million won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 23, 2015 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

The Defendant asserted that, around March 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 1) even though there was no obligation to repay a loan by finding the Defendant and assaulting and threatening the Defendant. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant prepared a loan certificate based on the Plaintiff’s assault and intimidation, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

Although the defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 15 million paid as the price for the construction machinery of May 2001 should be deducted from the above loan, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above amount of the construction machinery should be deducted from the plaintiff's loan, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.