1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 64 million with the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Around December 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant, a party, to be the lender to pay the operating cost of the “the performance of the contract” and to receive the operating profit.

On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the so-called “The Right to Contract” (hereinafter “The Right to Contract”) located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul to KRW 30 million, and subsequently paid expenses incurred in the operation of the Right to Contract.

On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of fraud in relation to the operation of the instant rescission of contract, and agreed to receive KRW 30 million from the Defendant by July 13, 2015, and receive KRW 64 million by August 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Plaintiff received only KRW 30 million as stipulated in the instant agreement from the Defendant, but has not yet received KRW 64 million.

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 64 million, as stipulated in the instant agreement, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 28, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s order to terminate the validity of the instant agreement by interfering with the business of the Plaintiff, but the written evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is insufficient to admit the Defendant’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument cannot be accepted.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion