1. Defendant B’s KRW 51,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2013 to September 28, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B borrowed money several times from the Plaintiff, and prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 80 million from June 3, 2007 to December 3, 2007 to the Plaintiff.

B. Since then, Defendant B again prepared to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing that extended the payment period of KRW 80 million to January 10, 2009. However, Defendant B had the name of Defendant C, the wife, and affixed C’s seal subsequent thereto.

(The above loan certificate of this case is referred to as "the loan certificate of this case").

Defendant B paid KRW 10 million out of the above KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2013, and around August 5, 2013, Defendant B demanded that the Plaintiff pay KRW 50 million out of the borrowed amount of KRW 70 million by August 5, 2013, and that the remainder of KRW 20 million be repaid by September 30, 2013, and that the borrower and the guarantor should be responsible for such payment.

Since then, from Defendant B’s D’s account, KRW 19 million was remitted to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 51,000,000 ( KRW 70,000,000 - KRW 19,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from October 1, 2013 to September 28, 2016, which is the day following the due date for payment of the complaint, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

As to this, Defendant B’s payment from August 7, 2007 to December 31, 2010 to the Plaintiff is KRW 51,250,00,00. In preparing the above loan certificate and a written rejection of payment, Defendant B’s payment should be deducted since it failed to settle and reflect the above repayment amount due to intimidation of the Plaintiff’s repayment. However, the above assertion is accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge this.