1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 13, 2015 to April 7, 2016.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant and the Defendant D by means of remitting money to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant from November 10, 2013 to February 17, 2015; (b) the Defendant: (c) the amount of money borrowed to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2013; (d) the amount of KRW 10 million borrowed; (e) the amount of money borrowed on December 10, 2013; (e) the amount of KRW 7 million borrowed on December 10, 2013; and (e) the amount of money borrowed on November 30, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant borrowings”).

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 21 million won per annum under the Civil Act from June 13, 2015, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, until April 7, 2016, which is the day when the judgment of this case is rendered, and 5% per annum under the following day until April 7, 2016, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day until the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the remainder of the loan except the above 4 million won, at the time of drawing up the loan certificate as of November 30, 2014, since the plaintiff agreed to settle the remainder of the loan loan other than the above 4 million won. However, the above argument is insufficient to acknowledge the remainder of the loan certificate Nos. 1-1 through 4, 2-2 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.