1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as well as 12% per annum from December 25, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. From around 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) from around 2007, the Defendant, etc. supplied pest for sales containers to “C” registered as joint business operators; and (b) the outstanding amount out of the price of the goods was at least 200 million won; (c) on March 6, 2012, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) with the agreement to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

3) On November 13, 2018, the Defendant confirmed again the instant agreement to the Plaintiff, and signed the said loan certificate stating “Defendant on November 13, 2018” with the Defendant’s signature. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from December 25, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim as of December 23, 2019.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s declaration of intention or the assertion of natural obligations against C is not paid KRW 200,000,000 to C, and the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “D”).

Around March 6, 2012, when a representative director was in office, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to pay the above goods for C. Accordingly, the Defendant merely prepared the instant loan certificate upon the Plaintiff’s request to the effect that D was promising to continue to be supplied with the Plaintiff’s disease even after March 6, 2012 on or after the upper limit or recognition of the loan certificate. As such, the instant agreement merely constitutes a case where the Plaintiff knew or could have known as a declaration of intention, not a truth, and constitutes a natural obligation. 2) Even if the Defendant did not assert the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the instant loan certificate is deemed invalid or natural obligation.