1. The defendant shall pay 130,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 17, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff issued and delivered to the Defendant two copies of electronic bills (one note with the amount of August 17, 2015, the issuance date of which was KRW 150,000,000,000, and one note with the due date of August 17, 2015, the due date of which was August 17, 2015, and one note with the due date of KRW 320,000,000, and one note with the due date of December 17, 2015) under the pretext of a loan. However, the Defendant paid the total of KRW 320,000,000 before the due date of the said bill.

B. On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant for KRW 130,00,000,00 that was to be paid as of December 17, 2015, and KRW 15,00,000 as of the end of each month from April 201 to November 201, in installments as of the end of December 2017, and paid interest of KRW 20,00 per annum from December 17, 2015 to the repayment date.”

was prepared and delivered (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry of Gap 1-6 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 130,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from December 17, 2015 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion 1) many persons such as the plaintiff company C, etc. find the defendant and make a disturbance against the defendant and make intimidation, and thus it should be revoked or null and void. However, the statement of Eul evidence 3 alone is insufficient to recognize that each of the documents of this case was made by the plaintiff's coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was made by the plaintiff's coercion. 2) The defendant asserts that the amount stipulated in the written statement of this case had already been paid to the plaintiff. However, although it is insufficient to acknowledge the above argument only with the evidence submitted by the defendant, there

3. The defendant is a financing bill issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, which is an act of melting bills.