2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that aims at the business of manufacturing and selling computers, software development, consulting, and service business, and the Defendant is a company that aims at the business of manufacturing and selling telecommunications equipment, the business of developing software, the business of manufacturing and selling electronic and electrical products, etc.

B. On March 18, 2010, the Plaintiff’s internal director C deposited KRW 50 million from the account under his name to the account under the name of the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as "first payment"). (c)

Plaintiff

On April 26, 2010, from the account under the name of the defendant, KRW 150 million was deposited (hereinafter “second payment”) with the account under the name of the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant written up the evidence No. 3-1 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the purport that “the plaintiff shall lend KRW 150 million to the defendant under the name of the defendant’s management fund, and the repayment date shall be June 10, 2010, and interest shall be set at 5% per annum (the date of preparation, April 26, 2010).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the payment of the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 was made to the Defendant pursuant to the loan agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount as stated in the purport of the claim pursuant to the above loan agreement.

B. The payment of the first and second payments by Defendant C is the amount invested in the business that the Plaintiff Company personally promoted by the Defendant Company (the Defendant, etc. orders D development projects promoted by the Korea Electric Power KRN, a subsidiary company of Korean power, and is listed on the KOSDAQ by combining various companies, including Defendant, E, etc.).

3. Determination

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim was a loan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the premise that the payment Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was a loan to the Defendant. Therefore, we examine whether the agreement on the loan of the first and second payments was concluded, as alleged by

B. The Defendant’s account at the Plaintiff’s internal director C.