1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 21, 2006 to May 16, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant arranged the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant paid KRW 100 million to the plaintiff as compensation for damages. On January 19, 2006, the above agreed amount shall be the object of a loan for consumption, and shall be paid not later than January 20, 2006, and if the defendant fails to perform the above monetary obligation without delay, it can be acknowledged that a notarial deed of debt repayment (Quasi-Loan for Consumption, Law Firm 119, 2006) that recognizes that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is performed. According to the above facts, the defendant shall pay KRW 100 million pursuant to a loan for consumption with the plaintiff, from January 21, 2006 to the day following the due date (the plaintiff is liable for late payment from January 20, 2006 to the day after the due date, but the debtor shall be liable for delay from the due date until January 20, 2006).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.