1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from January 1, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant proposed a joint project to the effect that if the Plaintiff’s husband B invested capital in the Plaintiff’s husband B, the Defendant would engage in his/her business. B and the Defendant established D Co., Ltd. on March 31, 201 according to the Defendant’s proposal, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the representative internal director position.

B. When the above business was incurred differently from the expected business, the Defendant made on September 14, 201, the loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff shall compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of KRW 60,000,000, half of the total loss of KRW 120,000,000 until the end of December, 2014, and that the Plaintiff shall pay the interest of KRW 1% per month if the payment is delayed (Evidence 2).

C. In addition, on September 15, 2011, the Defendant prepared a letter of agreement containing the same content as the above loan certificate, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed as to the above letter of agreement on the 20th of the same month.

[No dispute is brought about by a notary public] E Law Firm (ownership) in 2011 No. 3776]. [No dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum from January 1, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the due date of the agreement, to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the loan certificate (No. 2) of this case and the No. 1 of this case (Evidence No. 2 of this case) are prepared by coercion of Eul or that all of the contents are different from the facts. Thus, the defendant's assertion is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

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