1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,000,000 and its weight to the Plaintiff:

A. From March 16, 2011 to August 12, 2017, KRW 20,000.

1. Indication of the primary claim: It shall be as shown in the attached Form;

2. Judgment by public notice: Partial acceptance of a claim, and Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The part dismissing part of the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from each due date in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion and the statement in the evidence No. 32 (including the serial number), but even if following the Plaintiff’s assertion and the statement in the evidence No. 32, the due date for each of the above documents is March 15, 201, and April 10, 201. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the starting date of the damages for delay is March 16, 2011, and April 11, 201, respectively.

In addition, with respect to five million won of the above money, the plaintiff filed a claim for delay damages from the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint, but if there is no time limit for performance of obligation, the debtor is liable for delay from the time of receipt of the claim for performance (Article 387(2) of the Civil Act). In this case, where the plaintiff filed for delivery of the complaint, it is reasonable to pay delay damages from August 13, 2017, the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay exceeding the above recognition scope is without merit.