1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,363,287 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum from December 19, 2015 to June 23, 2016.

The Plaintiff lent KRW 80,00,000 to the Defendant on August 9, 2006; KRW 10,000,000 on January 29, 2007; and each interest rate of KRW 12% on a yearly basis (hereinafter “instant loan”); the Defendant did not pay the agreed interest rate from December 30, 207; and the Defendant paid KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 18, 2015 may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties; or the Defendant’s payment of KRW 80,00,000 to the Plaintiff on December 18, 2015.

According to the facts found above, an agreement on a loan by December 18, 2015, between the defendant's repayment date and December 18, 2015, shall be 57,363,287 won [=50,400,000 won of the principal of the loan = 60,000,000 won x 12% per annum per agreed interest rate x 7 years (= from December 30, 207 to December 30, 2014] 6,963,287 won [= 60,000,000 won per annum x 12% per annum 】 353 days (from December 30, 2014 to December 18, 2015). Thus, the agreement shall be appropriated from the defendant's repayment amount to 80,000,000 won to 360,367,367,207,367,20636,27,367,207,200.

Therefore, from December 19, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the agreed interest rate of 12% per annum until June 23, 2016 and the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

After receiving the instant payment order, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff was fully paid the principal and interest of the instant loan if the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000,000 as the Plaintiff complained of the difficulty in finding the Plaintiff after receiving the instant payment order.

As the defendant paid KRW 80,00,000, it is argued that all of the defendant's obligations arising from the loan of this case were extinguished.

The testimony of the witness C is not sufficient to admit the defendant's above assertion.