1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 11, 2014 to April 21, 2015, and the following.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4, the plaintiff supplied the defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 52,316,000, such as air conditioners and equipment related to Eul (D) located in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Jeju, and the defendant agreed to pay the outstanding amount on July 11, 2012 by July 16, 201.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, stating the purport that the plaintiff changed the cause of the claim from the loan to the proceeds of the loan from December 11, 2014, which was the day after the date of the delivery of the payment order of this case sought by the plaintiff as of December 11, 2014 to the proceeds of the loan of this case, as of April 21, 2015, which is the day of delivery of the reply as of April 8, 2015.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the goods of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the payment order of this case to the day of full payment. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant in the payment order of this case, but the Plaintiff received a written answer from the Defendant to the effect that “self-reliance was provided with goods and did not borrow any money from the Plaintiff,” and it is evident in the record that the cause of the claim was changed from the loan to the price of the goods. Therefore, the time of the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the goods of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015, and thus, it is not accepted the claim for damages exceeding the aforementioned scope recognized as above. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment for delay is accepted within the above recognized scope, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.