1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 28, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. We examine the determination on the cause of the claim; the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 45 million from the Plaintiff on December 17, 2014; KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff; KRW 25 million on May 22, 2015; and KRW 5 million on April 25, 2016; and there is no dispute between the parties.

Furthermore, although there is no dispute over the fact that the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff on May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is a loan with respect to the legal nature of the above money, and the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is a down payment received in return for Scar-out.

According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including partial Nos. 1 and 3), the Defendant borrowed KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2015 as the due date for repayment on December 30, 2016 and the interest rate of KRW 5%.

“Preparation and delivery of a loan certificate to the effect that “,” was made and made, on May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s financial transaction submitted by the Plaintiff, including the transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant on May 15, 2014, and the total amount of money paid up to the time when the said loan certificate was drawn up corresponds to the amount stated in the above loan certificate. Therefore, in light of this, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that the amount was KRW 5 million borrowed from the Plaintiff on May 15, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from July 28, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff.

2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant has a claim for piece rates and retirement allowances not received from the plaintiff, so the defendant has a defense to the effect that the claim is offset against the above claim.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s claim for piece rates and retirement allowances, and rather, according to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s Labor Standards Act and the Plaintiff’s Labor Standards Act to the Goyangyang District Office on August 24, 2017.