1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from March 18, 2015 to October 13, 2015.

On June 9, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would pay the amount immediately after selling imported fishery products if the Plaintiff borrowed the amount due to the shortage of the import cost of fishery products. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant only paid the amount of KRW 6 million out of the above loan even though selling imported fishery products, and claimed that the Defendant paid the remaining amount of KRW 34 million and damages for delay.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted 40 million won to the account in the name of the defendant who prepared for the import business of fishery products on June 9, 201, and that the defendant prepared a receipt to the plaintiff on the same day to the effect that "the defendant receives and receives the amount of 40 million won for fishery products income (such as high school income)." However, in light of the whole purport of the argument in each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including branch numbers) submitted by the defendant, the above 40 million won, which the plaintiff remitted to the above account under the name of the defendant, appears to have been paid to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the name of the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff borrowed the above 40 million won among the above 40 million won borrowed by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4 million won the remainder of the loan excluding the 6 million won which the plaintiff had already been paid to the plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 18, 2015 to October 13, 2015, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay the payment order from March 18, 2015 to the day of the delivery of the payment order.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is within the scope of the above recognition.