1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,590,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) by October 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 88 million to the Defendant until March 2015; and (b) on November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a certificate of loan with respect to the said loan; (c) agreed on May 16, 2020; and (d) agreed on the agreed interest rate at 2% per month; and (e) agreed that the Defendant would lose the benefit of the period when the payment of the said agreed interest was delayed at least twice.

However, as the Defendant has lost the interest accrued on the loan principal amounting to KRW 88 million on at least two occasions, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages for delay from February 14, 2018 on the loan principal amounting to KRW 88 million and ② from December 2, 2017 to February 2018, the remainder of the unpaid principal amounting to KRW 1.59 million and ③ from February 14, 2018.

B. If the objective meaning of the language and text is clear in cases where the content of a contract is written between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized.

However, if the objective meaning of the text is not clearly revealed, it should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense and trade norms by comprehensively examining the contents of the text, the motive and background of the contract to be achieved, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the contract to be achieved, the transaction practices, etc.

In particular, if the content of a contract claimed by one party imposes a serious liability on the other party, the more strict interpretation of the content should be interpreted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238540 Decided December 15, 2016, etc.). C.

Judgment

1) Facts under recognition do not conflict between the parties, or include Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including serial number), with the overall purport of the pleadings.