1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 110,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 13, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

On August 21, 2007, the Plaintiff leased the Defendant the repayment period of KRW 50 million to the Defendant three years later, and the Defendant paid KRW 1 million per interest per month. However, the Defendant paid only interest for the three-month period.

Accordingly, when the Plaintiff urged payment, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that a sum of KRW 120 million, including the principal amount of KRW 50 million on November 13, 2014 and the interest for delay from December 2009 to November 30, 2014, would be paid up to November 30, 2014, and issued it to the Plaintiff.

From May 28, 2015 to January 26, 2016, the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 12 million as indicated in the “temporary performance” column as of the date indicated in the “temporary performance” column among the details of appropriation of each of the attached notes from May 28, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the fact that the defendant's loan payment obligation is recognized as above, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from December 1, 2014, which is the day following the date of repayment. If the defendant appropriated the total of KRW 12 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay 10 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 13, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the written complaint, to the day of full payment.

The Defendant’s assertion and determination that the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff was an investment bond and agreed to pay a certain amount each month on the premise of success in the business. The corporation established with the said investment fund was closed down due to its business failure and could not pay dividends from the investment. However, the Plaintiff’s repeated demand for payment was made with the intention of preparing “a certificate of rent” (Evidence 1). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was asserted to the purport that it is unjust.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the amount paid by the plaintiff was an investment.