1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 19, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, ① The deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on September 12, 2010; ② the Plaintiff was appointed as an administrator of the deceased’s heir on February 6, 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Family Relationship and Inheritance, etc. between Residents of South and North Korea (Seoul Family Court Decision 2012Ra8670), and the appointment of the testator as the executor of the deceased on October 29, 2014 (Seoul Family Court Decision 2013Ra5730) and ③ the Defendant agreed to confirm the loan’s interest liability of KRW 75 million and to repay the loan up to December 30, 2012 to D who had the deceased’s executor as of May 10, 2012.

The Plaintiff is a person who has received principal KRW 25 million from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining principal amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 19, 2017 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because he/she frequently repaid the deceased’s claim to E or D, which is the relative of the deceased.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, the defendant may recognize the fact that the deceased on February 27, 2009 paid KRW 25 million and KRW 750,000 per month interest on August 1, 2012 on several occasions. However, the plaintiff appropriated the above KRW 25 million as principal payment, and then claims damages for delay from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case except the above evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge additional reimbursement. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.