1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 76,40,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 29, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant issued a promissory note with the amount of October 19, 201 as KRW 76.4 million and the addressee as of December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff, the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment as of December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”). If the Plaintiff and the defendant delayed the payment of the said promissory note, a notary public is commissioned to prepare a notarial deed to the effect that they do not raise any objection even if they are subject to compulsory execution, and that the notarial deed was made on October 19, 201 by a notary public as of October 142, 2011.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 76.4 million 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 December 29, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) borrowed money from the Plaintiff’s husband C; (b) deposited the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff, and (c) sold and repaid the loan; and (b) agreed on the Plaintiff’s side that the Defendant’s obligation under the Promissory Notes against the Plaintiff would be deemed to have been fully repaid; (c) the Plaintiff disposed of two parts of the Defendant’s Obaba 72 kept by the Plaintiff without the Defendant’s consent; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the obligation under the Promissory Notes was fully repaid.

The plaintiff disposed of the Obane owned by the defendant without the consent of the defendant.

As to the fact that the Defendant’s obligation of the Promissory Notes was fully repaid, it is not sufficient to recognize the obligation solely with each description of the evidence of Nos. 1 through 3 (including serial numbers), and it is otherwise recognized.