1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 2, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 3 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on April 4, 2016 stipulating that the Plaintiff would rent at KRW 25,000,000 per annum for the storage of the Plaintiff’s ground C (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) at KRW 25,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 2, 2017 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case is null and void as a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the defendant's old spirit, rashness, or inexperience. However, in light of the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant's career, and the circumstances leading to the conclusion of the contract of this case, etc., the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the contract of this case constitutes a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the defendant's old spirit, rashness, or experience, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently

B. The defendant's right to use and profit from each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") for the convenience of loans was registered in the name of the plaintiff in the course of operating the plaintiff and D farming association corporation (hereinafter "the corporation of this case"), and the defendant also claims that the defendant has the right to use and profit from one half of the warehouse of this case. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant has ownership of one half of the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.