A. On October 18, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant with the following terms, and loaned KRW 161,780,000 on December 10, 209.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement” and the relevant loan claim is referred to as the “instant loan claim”). The loan interest rate: 1.5% (based on the date of loan: 4.29% per annum) at a rate of 1.5% per annum in the three-month CDs (based on the date of loan): The interest rate for delay on December 31, 201: 19% per annum.

B. The Defendant did not repay the principal and interest of the above loan, and the Plaintiff’s loan balance against the Defendant as of March 1, 2016 is as follows.

161,780,00 won 92,958,233 won 254,738,233 interest rate per annum 13.05% per annum on the balance of the loan principal and damages for delay [the grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings];

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 254,783,233 as well as the principal of KRW 161,780,00 among the principal and interest of KRW 161,780,00 from March 2, 2016 until April 11, 2016, the delivery date of the original payment order of this case, the agreed interest rate of KRW 13.05% per annum, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion (1) The instant loan agreement was concluded for the payment of the part payment of the instant officetel 2905 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) sold in lots by the Defendant, and the said sales contract was incorporated into the contents of the instant sales contract and integrated into the sales contract. As such, the instant loan agreement was terminated or terminated in the instant case.

In addition, where the defendant loses the benefit of time under the loan agreement of this case, the Korean assets trust, etc. directly pays the principal and interest of loan to the plaintiff instead of returning the proceeds of sale to the defendant, and accordingly the loan agreement of this case becomes null and void.