A. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of lending money C, lent KRW 65,00,000 in total by paying KRW 15,000,000 in the name of the machinery facility fund for the type of scrap metal to D, which was the representative director of the Defendant, as the fund for the type of machinery equipment for the type of scrap metal, and KRW 30,000 in the same month on November 17, 201, and KRW 15,000,000 in the name of the machinery cost on the 28th day of the same month (=20,000,000 in total). KRW 15,00,000 in the name of the machinery cost for the type of machinery production.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

1) On January 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) written undertaking to pay machinery costs; and (b) the Plaintiff: F, which operates E on January 1, 2012, is a waste screening machine; and (c) the instant machine.

order for the production of 50,00,000 won on January 12, 2012 and as part of the price, the same year

2. 16.20,000,000 won in total, 70,000 won in total.

2) However, upon the discontinuance of the manufacture of the instant machinery by F, the Defendant agreed on May 201 to accept the Defendant’s obligation to return the machinery cost owed by F to the Plaintiff instead of the Defendant’s delivery of the instant machinery, and the Defendant agreed on May 14, 2012, pursuant to the said agreement, that “the obligor (Defendant) will reimburse the amount of KRW 70,000,000 until June 20, 2012, and promise to faithfully perform this obligation” (hereinafter “instant undertaking”).

2) The Plaintiff prepared and delivered the instant agreement to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C) As a result of the relevant criminal case, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against D, the representative director of the Defendant, by asserting that the Defendant did not perform his/her obligation with the instant loan and the agreed amount, on the charge of fraud. However, on March 26, 2015, the Defendant, on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant did not pay a part of the price, was found to have rendered a decision of non-prosecution without suspicion on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the intention of deception or deception (No. 2014 type No. 26796 of the Chang

(i) [Facts without dispute, A, A, and 1].