A. From April 11, 2013 to February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) determined a sum of KRW 156,200,000 to the Defendant as stated in the column for loans for appropriation of performance in attached Form No. 156,200,000 as interest rate monthly, as stated in the attached Table

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

From May 7, 2013 to August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant each amount indicated in the column for the amount to be repaid (hereinafter “instant amount”) on the date of appropriation as indicated in the attached Table of appropriation appropriation, as indicated in the attached Table of appropriation appropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul's witness C's witness's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that, as of August 24, 2015, the principal and interest of the instant loan was KRW 70,715,693 (principal KRW 53,700,006 and interest KRW 17,015,687) and the principal and interest of the said loan were paid for KRW 70,715,693 and KRW 53,700,000 of the loan principal and interest and interest of KRW 53,70,000,000 per annum from October 20 to the date of full payment.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest calculated at the rate of 30% per annum (25% per annum from July 15, 2014) (the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from July 15, 2014), which is the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, within the scope of the instant loan and the interest agreed thereon, and the remainder calculated by subtracting the instant repayment amount from the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from March 26, 2014) and the interest or delay damages on the leased principal.

B. As to this, the defendant wishes to make a transaction through the defendant who has lent money to C, and the defendant received money from the plaintiff and delivered it to C, the plaintiff asserts that he did not lend the above money to C, rather than lending it to the defendant.

The above recognition shall be limited to the evidence of Nos. 1 through 5, No. 6-1 and No. 2, and some testimony of the witness C submitted by the defendant.