1. The Defendant’s KRW 77,00,000 as well as 30% per annum from February 14, 2009 to July 14, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff set the interest amount of KRW 10 million as of October 25, 2007 to the defendant, as of January 24, 2008, and as of January 24, 2008; ② the interest amount of KRW 20 million on October 30, 2007 to the third day of the month and January 30, 2008; ③ the interest amount of KRW 18 million as of November 5, 2007 to the third day of the month and November 13, 2007; ④ the interest amount of KRW 30,000,000 as of November 13, 200 and the due date of repayment to the end of November 13, 2007 to the end of January 13, 2007; and thereafter, each of them thereafter loaned KRW 50,000,000,000 to the end of payment to the end of January 13, 2007.

B. On April 30, 2008, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 50 million.

C. On February 20, 2009, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) stating that the Plaintiff will borrow KRW 77 million with interest monthly and due date as of March 30, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of claim, the plaintiff and the defendant are deemed to have entered into a novation agreement with the purport of changing each of the loan claims existing on February 20, 2009 into a loan claim with the principal amount of KRW 77 million, interest monthly, and the due date until March 30, 2009. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 77 million and damages for delay pursuant to the above agreement, barring any special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense against the plaintiff's ground of appeal 1 is proved that the defendant transferred to the plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 30 million with respect to Section C, and ② the claim amounting to KRW 10,205,00 with respect to Section D, and the claim amounting to the above claim amount.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant transferred each of the above claims to the plaintiff does not dispute between the parties, but in order to take effect of the extinguishment of payment in kind, other benefits provided by the debtor in lieu of the original performance.