1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 101,628,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 1, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

The fact that a monetary loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which was known to the Defendant while staying in Japan, stating that “the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff on November 1, 2007 the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum of Japan and KRW 10 million on July 31, 2010” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) is either a dispute between the parties or according to the purport of the statement and the entire pleadings.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence supporting the defendant's argument as to the preparation of the loan certificate of this case as seen below, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant borrowed 10 million Korean dollars from the plaintiff as stated in the loan certificate of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obliged to pay 10 million Korean dollars and delay damages to the plaintiff.

However, in light of the purport of Articles 378 and 377(2) of the Civil Act, where an obligor pays foreign currency claims which are monetary claims designated in a foreign currency in Korean currency, it is reasonable to say that the conversion period is not the due date, but the actual performance is to be converted into Korean currency at the foreign exchange rate at the time of actual performance. In a case where an obligee claims the above foreign currency claims in Korean currency by exercising the right to substitute payment, the court shall, within the scope of the amount sought by the Plaintiff, order the performance of the amount converted into Korean currency at the time of the close conclusion of the fact-finding trial as at the time of the close conclusion of the fact-finding trial, based on the exchange rate at the time of the actual performance of the claim.