1. As to KRW 110,00,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 50,00,000 among them, the Defendant shall start from July 1, 2018 to December 16, 2019.

1. C, the Defendant’s wife of the basic facts, on July 22, 2009, set KRW 50,000 as interest rate of KRW 7.2% per annum to the Plaintiff on July 22, 2009 and borrowed up until February 28, 2015.

“A notarized and delivered notarial deed to the effect (hereinafter “first loan”) and borrowed 60,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on December 23, 2009 at interest rate of 2% per annum, until May 31, 2015.

“The fact that “the second loan” (hereinafter referred to as “the second loan”) was prepared and delivered, that the Plaintiff loaned the first and second loan to C, that the Plaintiff paid only interest on the first loan up to June 2018, that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the first and second loan on August 2, 2018, that the Defendant again promised to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the second loan on behalf of the Plaintiff around August 13, 2018, and that the Defendant again promised to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the first and second loan on behalf of the Plaintiff around August 13, 2018 may be acknowledged by either the dispute between the parties or the entire purport of the pleadings and the statement of the evidence (including the serial number) and the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant, who promised to repay the principal and the principal of the first and second loans to the Plaintiff, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages arising from July 1, 2018 for the second loans, and from December 23, 2009 for the second loans.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is asserted that the plaintiff agreed not to receive interest on the second loan instead of using part of C's release on bail, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

Although the defendant alleged that C repaid the principal amount of KRW 5,00,000 among the first loans, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement in subparagraph 4-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Although the defendant alleged that C provided the plaintiff with the object of securing a reasonable radius, it is the 1st and second loan debt, which is the secured debt.