1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 23, 2006 to March 7, 2016.

1. On October 20, 2005, the defendant attached a letter of non-performance with the following content and delivered it to the plaintiff.

Creditors: The above-mentioned amount of credit is paid under joint responsibility by the representative E of the D Welfare Institute and the representative director G of the FF corporation and technical directors B of the FF corporation, the current contractor, for the construction site of D Welfare Institute (E) in the Chungcheongbuk-gun, the amount of credit of the Plaintiff.

The loan shall be paid in the first order at the time of the loan, but the loan shall be paid in cash until January 23, 2006. If the non-performance is the representative E of the D Welfare Institute and the representative G of the F Co., Ltd. and the technical director, the defendant shall be liable for civil and criminal liability.

If the payment is not made by the above date, 6% delay damages shall be paid annually and compulsory execution shall be accepted.

Do governor of non-performance:

1. Representatives of the Korea Welfare Institute;

2. Representative Director G of the F Co., Ltd.

3. Evidence No. 1 of the ground for recognition of Defendant 1 (a written rejection of failure: the Plaintiff denied the establishment of the petition on the date of the first pleading, but the Plaintiff reversed it on the date of the third pleading and recognized the establishment of the petition).

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,000,000, which is the amount indicated in the above statement of default, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 23, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the representative E of the Korea Welfare Institute was to receive and arrange a loan in relation to the D Welfare Institute construction, and that the above E did not perform the above promise. However, as long as the defendant signed the letter of non-performance, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was exempted from the obligation under the above letter of non-performance merely due to the above circumstances.

In addition to the above argument, the defendant did not make any assertion or defense.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.