1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37950,00 and KRW 34.5 million per annum from July 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that on August 5, 2013, the Defendant prepared a letter of payment with the amount of KRW 34.5 million from the loan to the Plaintiff, KRW 34.5 million from the due date, and KRW 10% from the due date, and that the Defendant failed to pay the above loan to the Plaintiff by the due date.

2. According to the allegations and the above facts found, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant argued to the effect that the defendant received the above money from the plaintiff, but actually used C and D to bear the responsibility. However, this is merely an internal circumstance between the defendant, C and D, and it is not a valid defense against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37.95 million (i.e., the sum of the loan principal and the agreed delay damages (i.e., KRW 34.5 million) and KRW 34.5 million (i.e., KRW 3., KRW 3.4.5 million), which the Plaintiff seeks, at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from July 11, 2017 to the date of full payment, to the Plaintiff

(A) The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from October 1, 2013, which was the day following the date of the above payment due date, but the agreed damages for delay were recognized as 3.45 million won for failure to meet the above payment due date, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for delay on the amount claimed by the Plaintiff is accepted only from the day following the day on which the payment order in this case was served to the Defendant). 3. The Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion is partially accepted within the above recognition scope.