1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,400,00 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from May 11, 2019 to May 31, 2019, respectively.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, each of the following can be acknowledged: (a) on November 18, 2009 and November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff invested KRW 30 million in the Defendant as sales price of Motriium products; and (b) on August 201, the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff a total of KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff in installments each of the three months from October to December 3 of the same year.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 13.5 million from the Defendant during the period from December 21, 2010 to February 14, 2018 from the Defendant, and was paid a total of KRW 1,1.1 million during the said period, and was paid as payment in kind for the product and appropriated both as principal.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 35.4 million (=60 million - KRW 1.1 million - KRW 13.5 million - 13.5 million), as sought by the Plaintiff, the damages for delay calculated from May 11, 2019 to the date of full payment (15% per annum until May 31, 2019, and 12%) under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the instant claim.

2. The defendant's defense asserted that the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 39,792,600 to the plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 39,792,600 on the ground that the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 39,792,60 to the plaintiff (the burden of proof as to the payment is the defendant). Although the defendant issued an order to submit additional supporting documents on the details of payment, the defendant submitted only the evidence Nos. 2 as evidence in addition to the evidence Nos. 1. 1. The defendant asserted that the content of payment to the plaintiff was written and submitted as a material to arrange the