1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual amount of KRW 15% from December 14, 2018 to May 31, 2019, respectively.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent the defendant a sum of KRW 50,000,000 on June 1, 2018, and KRW 20,000,000 on June 13, 2018, and KRW 50,000,000 on June 22, 2018, and each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) does not interfere with the above recognition.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,00,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the provisions of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) from December 14, 2018 to May 31, 2019, and the statutory interest rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019).

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff seek damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum for the period from June 1, 2019 to 50,000,000 won.

However, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019 and enforced June 1, 2019) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda, the statutory interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was 12% per annum from June 1, 2019.

Therefore, from June 1, 2019, it is only possible to order the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in excess is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.