1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum from June 28, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff and China-China (agent D), D, and the Defendant invested KRW 300 million to C in terms of the expenses for the Republic of Korea repatriation and the liquidation of inherited real estate of the said C, C and D shall return the amount of KRW 1 billion, including the said KRW 300 million, to the Plaintiff by the end of March 2016, and shall pay the amount of KRW 700 million among them and KRW 300 million by the end of September 2016, respectively, and the Defendant agreed jointly and severally with the said C and to bear the obligation to return the amount of the said investment agreement.

B. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff, including the transfer of KRW 100 million to D’s account, paid a total of KRW 400 million to C through D or the Defendant through the name of investment, by October 27, 2016.

C. As the above investment agreement was not implemented properly, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s nonperformance and jointly with C, etc., and concluded and issued to the Plaintiff a performance undertaking letter on June 20, 2016, which was to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1.5 billion in total, including KRW 1 billion in the said investment agreement amount, and KRW 50 million in total.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant who agreed or promised to return the above investment agreement amount jointly and severally with the above C, etc. is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 100 million and damages for delay as claimed by the plaintiff out of KRW 1.5 billion, such as the above investment agreement amount.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s investment amount was used by C, and that the Plaintiff received not only a loan certificate from C, but also a lawsuit seeking payment of the said investment agreement amount, etc., and received a favorable judgment. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the instant claim against the Defendant, which only served as the sender of the said investment amount, is groundless.

However, the plaintiff's above claim cannot be rejected solely on the grounds alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasoning.