1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 25, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. As long as a judgment on the cause of the claim is recognized to be genuine in its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.

In a case where there is a dispute over the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the intent expressed in the disposition document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively examining the contents of the text, the motive and background of the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da235647 Decided July 12, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da235647, Jul. 12, 2018). The Plaintiff joined the Defendant’s operating system and started to pay the deposit amount from February 2013, and thereafter, the Defendant stated in the written reply that “the Plaintiff has consistently paid interest and principal to the Plaintiff,” such as lending money to the Defendant as well as receiving interest thereon. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have recognized the fact that the amount of interest, interest rate, etc. is unclear, but the Defendant also paid

The fact that no later than February 19, 2018 had been engaged in monetary transactions with the Defendant. In that process, the Plaintiff appears to have taken the method of again lending the money to the Defendant instead of receiving the money to be paid by the Defendant. Since then, the Defendant prepared and issued a loan certificate stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff” on May 18, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate of this case”) by reflecting the said money transaction, etc., the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the money from the Plaintiff on May 18, 2018 is not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 2 and 3 and

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has been engaged in monetary transactions with the plaintiff.