1. The Defendant’s KRW 119,563,976 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 14, 2018 to April 4, 2019.

1. In the initial application for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff loaned KRW 167 million to the Defendant on August 5, 2014 at an annual interest rate of KRW 12% and due date of payment on July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff shall seek reimbursement of KRW 157 million remaining after subtracting the amount of KRW 10 million repaid by the Defendant (the Defendant shall prepare and deliver a loan certificate of the above contents)” (the Defendant shall prepare and deliver the same loan certificate to the Plaintiff) and that the loan claim of KRW 119,563,976 still remains by arranging the monetary relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as described in the attached document as in the court’s cadastral records. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may accept the claim within the scope that the Plaintiff reduced as above.

2. Grounds for recognition: Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1248, Apr. 2, 201).

3. Determination on the Defendant’s argument: The Defendant asserted that all rejected the loan amount: The Defendant actually borrowed the amount of KRW 140 million from the Plaintiff; however, the Defendant violated the statement on the loan certificate, which is a disposal document, and it is difficult to accept the said statement differently from the details of the loan transaction.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 700,000 to KRW 4 million each month by the end of 2017. However, this part of the claim amount was actually reduced by adjusting the claim amount by himself/herself, as shown in the attached legal brief, and thus, it is not separately examined.