1. As to KRW 200,000,000 among them and KRW 100,000,000 among them, the Defendant shall make August 30, 201 to the Plaintiff, and the remainder of KRW 100,000.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 120 million to the Defendant on a yearly basis, and one-year period for repayment. (2) On November 11, 2010, the Plaintiff determined the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum and the one-year period for repayment to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 200 million and interest or delay damages on the loan.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of exemption from interest, etc., the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff exempted the interest on each of the above loans.

In full view of the statements Nos. 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, and 2 of the evidence, witness C’s testimony, part of the Plaintiff’s representative director’s testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the Plaintiff’s questioning, each of the loan certificates prepared around the above lending date was printed in advance that “this interest rate of 12% per annum is applied.” However, the Plaintiff’s representative director D stated in each of the loan certificates (Evidence No. 1 and 2) that “the interest content of this document shall be deleted,” and it can be recognized that each of the above loans was delivered to C who was represented by the Defendant’s husband. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff exempted the interest on each of the above loans.

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the interest on each of the above loans was exempted from damages for delay as well as the interest on the above loans. However, in light of the fact that the interest and delay damages are clearly distinguished from the interest and delay damages, it is insufficient to recognize the fact of the defendant's assertion by the testimony of the witness C alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of conditional exemption from interest.