1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from December 31, 2013 to October 17, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expression, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing, which is a disposal document, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expression shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written in writing, regardless of the internal intent of the parties. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, unless there are special circumstances, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be acknowledged.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). In light of the fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Party A1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million up to December 30, 2012, and if the Plaintiff fails to implement the payment, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff prepared and issued a loan certificate with the content of extending the payment date for a year.

If we look at the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 50 million won and damages for delay.

In regard to this, the defendant secured that the above loan certificate was made by the plaintiff's forced execution and that the defendant did not cause legal problems in the future with the contents known to the plaintiff in the course of operating the plaintiff's business in the past. After that, the defendant implemented the above agreement, and that the plaintiff would destroy the loan certificate upon the payment of KRW 5 million, and that the plaintiff paid KRW 4.7 million to the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.