1. The Defendant’s KRW 58,000,000 and its weight to the Plaintiff:

A. From February 1, 2010 to April 29, 2016, for KRW 8,000,000.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Defendant lent KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiff on February 25, 2009, when there was a monetary loan relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. From April 2009 to January 10, 2010, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan to pay KRW 1,00,000 per month in installments, and around 2010, lent KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff. Around December 31, 2015, the Defendant lent KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff and issued the certificate of loan to pay the principal to the Plaintiff plus interest of KRW 10,00 per month.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "each loan certificate of this case". (b)

On March 23, 2009, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 2,000,000,000 from the Defendant.

2. According to these facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant agreed to settle the monetary lending relationship with the Plaintiff as stated above. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 58,00,000 and its KRW 8,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum as the Plaintiff seeks from February 1, 2010 to April 29, 2016, which was served on the Defendant with the application form for modification of the purport and cause of the instant claim from February 1, 2010, and at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, and as to the remaining KRW 50,00,000 from January 1, 206 to the day of full payment, the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum as the Plaintiff seeks.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that even though there was no money to repay to the plaintiff, the defendant prepared each of the loans of this case by the plaintiff's coercion.

Where a contract is prepared in writing as a disposal document between the parties, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, special circumstances are made.