1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 1, 2013 to October 7, 2014; and (b) October 8, 2014 for the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on December 22, 201, but thereafter, was paid KRW 10 million in the name of the date in arrears; (b) on December 10, 2012, the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to settle the loan amounting to KRW 25 million in the principal amount; and (c) on January 31, 2013, the due date was due (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”); (d) there is no dispute between the parties who received the loan certificate (Evidence A) from the Defendant; or (e) there is no defense between the parties, and (e) evidence Nos. 1, 3, witness C’s testimony, and witness D’s testimony, and (e) the entire purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 1, 2013 to October 7, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1, the defendant asserted that the loan balance under the agreement of this case is only KRW 15 million by paying the plaintiff a total of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff on the date in the absence of date.

As seen earlier, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million out of the initial loan of KRW 30 million on the date of the instant agreement, but upon examining whether the loan balance of KRW 15 million under the instant agreement was due to additional repayment of KRW 10 million, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against the Defendant, asserting that the loan balance of KRW 15 million under the instant agreement was KRW 15 million on July 7, 2014, and on the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, and 5-4 of the evidence No. 5-4, the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional seizure against real estate.