1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 176,00,000 for double KRW 100,000 and KRW 100,000 for double payment, from January 22, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff leased 200 million won interest monthly to the Defendant and the due date on September 15, 2013.

B. The Defendant repaid interest to the Plaintiff up to June 21, 2014, and paid the principal 100 million won on January 22, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the interest rate to 1.5% per annum (18% per annum) after January 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 18% per annum (18% per annum (1.5% per month) which is the agreed interest rate, from January 22, 2016 to January 21, 2016, for the total amount of 200 million won interest per month from June 22, 2014 to June 21, 2016 (200 million won x 0.02 x 19). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 18% per annum (1.5% per month) which is the agreed interest rate per month from January 22, 2016 to the date of full payment.

On January 22, 2016, the defendant alleged that at the time when the defendant repaid 100 million won to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to change the interest rate of 1.5% per month on the accrued interest amount of 200 million won from June 22, 2014 to January 21, 2016, but it is insufficient to recognize the same only by the descriptions of 1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 3-1, 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.