1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) KRW 25,00,000 and interest thereon shall be 15% per annum from February 5, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

The following facts may be acknowledged with respect to the claims for loans of KRW 25 million, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence 2, 4, and 8-1 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

Plaintiff

A deposited KRW 25 million into the Defendant’s account on May 21, 2015.

On January 14, 2016, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiffs a certificate of borrowing that “A shall borrow the above amount and pay the overdue interest of 15% per annum at the time determined by the Plaintiffs, and shall pay the overdue interest of 15% per annum” (Evidence A 2 and the date of preparation as of May 21, 2015).

The plaintiffs demanded the return of the above amount to the defendant on February 4, 2016.

If there is no due date for the performance of obligations, the liability shall be delayed from the day following the receipt of the claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Da3253 Decided November 8, 1988, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the rate of 25 million won per annum from February 5, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the above written peremptory notice, reaches the Defendant with respect to KRW 25 million and the above written peremptory notice, thereby reaching the Defendant.

(Plaintiffs claim for the payment of damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from February 3, 2016. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the interest agreement prior to the due date, and even if the Plaintiffs stated the due date on February 2, 2016 in the above written peremptory notice, it cannot be deemed that the due date has arrived before the above written peremptory notice reaches the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the interest or damages for delay exceeding the above recognized scope cannot be recognized). The key point of the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiffs leased KRW 25 million to the Defendant in Suwon-si land and buildings (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”).

Therefore, this Court F.F. in relation to the secured claim.