1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 1, 2016 to July 6, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence No. 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won by June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 1, 2016 until July 6, 2017, when the duplicate of the application form for alteration of the purport and cause of the claim in this case is served on the defendant, until July 6, 2017, when the copy of the application form for alteration of the purport and cause of the claim in this case is served on the defendant.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the agreement of this case means that the plaintiff would give KRW 20,00,000 when the joint operation is carried out according to the agreement of the same case which was first between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and that the agreement of this case is no longer effective and its repayment obligation is no longer effective.

However, as long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied. The agreement of this case does not state that "20,000,000 won shall be borrowed from the plaintiff as joint operation fund in Gwangju City, and shall be repaid until June 30, 2016" in the language and text written in which the content of the agreement of this case is stated: Provided, That the operation of C shall be responsible for the plaintiff, as alleged by the defendant, and thus, it cannot be interpreted that the future joint operation becomes a condition for the repayment of borrowed money.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1 through 4, No. 1-1, and No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant, if the Plaintiff operating NAA, the Plaintiff agreed to set up an agreement that the Defendant would set up a sales store and collect NAARs in the course of the business, and that the Plaintiff would not bring about KRW 40,00,000 to the Defendant.