A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8 (including additional numbers) and the whole pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged:

1) On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff invested KRW 140 million to the Defendant between the Defendant’s representative director D and the Defendant’s representative director D, and if the Plaintiff invested KRW 140 million in the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant SMC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SM”).

(2) On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 140 million in total with the Defendant’s account, including KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000.

3) On November 14, 2014, the Defendant entered into an investment agreement with NAM and its main contents are as follows. The purpose of this agreement is to determine the specific contents and all necessary matters as to Gap (Defendant)’s investment in “the collection of non-performing loans related to the mobile phone use agreement” and to stipulate clearly the rights and obligations relationship between Gap and Eul. Article 2 (Performance of Investment) of the Agreement is to invest the total amount of KRW 140,000 (Won 140,000,000) in three-lanes according to the formation of this Agreement. ① The first: 1.0 million won (Won 50,00,000), ② 2.0 million won (Won 50,000,000), 3.0 billion won (Won 14, 2014), 3.0 billion won (Won 50,000,000) and 4.0 billion won (Won 1, 2014).30.

However, where Party A and Party B have consulted in advance, they may be used accordingly.