1. The Defendant’s KRW 30 million with respect to the Plaintiff and 4% per annum from January 1, 2013 to March 6, 2016, and the following day.

1. Basic facts

A. In February 2005, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff Company and was in charge of the electric railway design work during the electric railway design, and promoted severance from office B around February 2012.

B. The Defendant shall lend interest of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff at the statutory interest amount, and shall pay the last day of each month at the statutory interest amount, and shall pay KRW 6 million each year for five years.

“The” was prepared and delivered a loan certificate as of March 19, 2012, and was remitted from the Plaintiff on March 20, 2012.

C. On January 1, 2013, the Defendant issued and delivered a monetary loan agreement on December 1, 2013, stating that the Plaintiff would pay the said KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2015 and pay interest at the rate of 4% as of the end of each month.

Around September 25, 2015, the Defendant retired from the Plaintiff Company.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million borrowed from January 1, 2013 to March 6, 2016, the agreed interest rate of KRW 4% per annum, and delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion argues that upon promoting severance, C has the right to remain, and C has offered a range of KRW 10 million a year, and the proposal was refused, and the intention to resign and received the above money by promising to pay KRW 30 million a lump sum, and it was merely received the above money, not borrowed money.

In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and contents of the expression of intent expressed in the document are clear and acceptable.

The defendant should account for the plaintiff.