1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against the Defendant, Law Firm C, June 22, 2018, No. 601.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On June 21, 2018, D borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on June 22, 2018, D entered into a contract for monetary consumption and borrowing and lending (hereinafter “the instant contract”) with the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D.

2) Under the process deed of this case, the obligee is the Plaintiff, the obligor D, and the joint guarantor. The maximum amount of the debt and the joint and several guarantor’s debt guarantee amount is KRW 180 million each, and the due date is June 20, 2019, and there is no interest and delay damages.

3) On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant KRW 72 million out of the debt under the instant process deed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, only the Plaintiff’s debt based on the instant fair deed against the Defendant remains 18 million won (i.e., KRW 180 million - KRW 72 million) and does not exceed this, and as long as the Defendant contests the remaining scope of the above debt, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the claim as the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s argument that the debt amount under the instant process deed is KRW 180 million is due to the fact that there was an agreement between the Defendant and D on the interest or delay damages of KRW 12 million per month on the leased principal amount of KRW 150 million per month (monthly 8%). The Plaintiff also has jointly and severally guaranteed D’s debt with the knowledge of such fact. The Plaintiff is obliged to pay to the Defendant the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 150 million per annum as well as at least 24% per annum as prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s repayment amount of KRW 72 million per month should be first appropriated for the above interest or delay damages.

B. We examine the judgment, and even if there was an agreement between the Defendant and D on the interest or delayed damages claimed by the Defendant.

On the other hand, this is also applicable.