1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. In full view of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant corporation B (hereinafter "the defendant corporation") whose representative director was the representative director, did not pay USD 260,130.21 in charterage from the plaintiff on October 6, 2015, even if he received substitute payment of USD 260,130.21 in charterage from the plaintiff on November 5, 2015, and the defendant corporation paid USD 260,130.21 to the plaintiff on November 30, 2015.

“Preparation and delivery of a letter of payment. The Defendant signed and sealed the said letter of payment with the purport that it shall be a joint and several surety for the above obligation. According to the above facts, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff US$ 260,130.21 (US$ 297,458,895, US$ 1,143.50, April 19, 2016, which is the date of the closing of argument) as a joint and several surety for the above obligation of the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of US$ 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, from December 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.

It is true that the defendant signed and sealed the above payment note to the effect that it shall be jointly and severally guaranteed, but it is not possible to recognize the contents of the above payment note, since the payment note was prepared as a draft in the course of charterage consultation with the plaintiff and three companies, but the agreement was reached. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the above argument, and the defendant's assertion is not acceptable without any other evidence.

2. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.