1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by this court, is modified as follows.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed a loan of KRW 105,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant. The first instance court accepted all of the Plaintiff’s claims except for the dismissal of the part exceeding the rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed the entire portion of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant, but partially withdrawn an appeal as stated in the purport of the appeal on December 19, 2016. On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for additional interest or delay damages on certain loans by amending the purport of the incidental appeal to the purport of the incidental appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part on which the defendant appealed and the part on which the plaintiff additionally claims interest or delay damages.

Basic Facts

On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the interest rate of KRW 30 million to the Defendant 2% per month; (b) on December 12, 2014, KRW 10 million as of December 12, 2014 to be KRW 2% per month; and (c) on June 12, 2015, the repayment period of KRW 20 million was determined to be KRW 3% per month; and (d) on November 28, 2014, the Defendant issued one promissory note as of July 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff, the debtor, with respect to the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Da large 136§³ and its ground buildings owned by the Defendant, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million, and the registration of

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). On April 17, 2015, the Defendant repaid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 7 (including virtual numbers), and the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings. In addition to each of the above loans, the plaintiff lent to the defendant a loan of KRW 40 million on May 12, 2014, and additionally KRW 20 million on June 12, 2015 (cash 1.5 million), respectively.