1. The Defendant: (a) 5% per annum from October 31, 2013 to November 27, 2014 to the Plaintiff, as well as 3,200,000 UN, and its related thereto.

1. Around January 6, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned 2,370,328 UN on August 27, 2009 to the Defendant 493,702 UN on August 27, 2009, and 12,60 UN on September 1, 2009, and the Defendant thereafter borrowed 3,200,000 UN on October 30, 201 to the effect that the Plaintiff would repay the principal and interest of each of the above loans. The Defendant borrowed 3,200,000 UN on October 30, 2010, and concluded 30,200,000 UN on October 30, 2013 (Evidence 2) that no dispute exists between the parties, or that it may be acknowledged by taking into account the purport of each of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2 as a whole.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 31, 2013, the following day after the due date for the payment of the KRW 3,200,000, to November 27, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

[Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case. However, there is no reason for Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of more than 15% per annum pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Regulations on Special Cases Concerning Legal Interest Rate (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the same Act.

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the above loan certificate (Evidence A 2) was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, and that the above loan certificate's expression of intent based on the above loan certificate is revoked by coercion.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above loan certificate was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. The defendant