1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 22, 2016 to August 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

In full view of the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the witness Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is recognized to have lent KRW 40 million to the defendant on September 17, 2013 (Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the defendant was paid the price for the goods related to the defendant's gold ethyl (in this case, he shall not be accepted) through gold ethyl C). The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won as loans and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from December 22, 2016 (the delivery date of complaint) to August 22, 2017 (the date of this judgment, which is appropriate for the defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to perform), and from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the due date is December 31, 2013 and claimed damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum for the period from January 1, 2014 to the delivery date of the complaint, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the due date is identical to the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case is without merit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.