1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 28, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 7, 2011, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that “the Plaintiff shall borrow KRW 200,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and shall repay to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2012.” The Defendant received the said money from the Plaintiff around that time. The Defendant thereafter remitted KRW 60,00,000 to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2012, and the fact that the Defendant remitted KRW 80,00,000 to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2012 is either not in dispute between the parties or according to the descriptions in the evidence No. 1, 2, and 2 of the evidence No. 1.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant borrowed the above KRW 200,000 from the plaintiff, and since the defendant was the person who received 140,000,000 from the plaintiff the repayment of the above loan, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 60,00,000 (=200,000 - 140,0000 - 140,0000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 28, 2013 to the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case is served after the due date as requested by the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion is KRW 200,000,000 that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, not the loan, but the net capacity, the design development and the design service cost.

However, if the plaintiff fully pays the service cost before the completion of the construction work, the defendant requested the defendant to have a problem, and the defendant inevitably ordered the plaintiff to prepare a loan certificate.

In addition, the defendant asserts that 140,000,000 won paid to the plaintiff is the money loaned to the plaintiff.

B. If the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67264, 67271, May 13, 2005). According to the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 1-2, the court shall acknowledge the authenticity of the judgment document.