A. From January 31, 2017 to November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff attached Form to the Defendant.

1. A total of KRW 72,850,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) was lent as indicated in the loan content.

B. From February 15, 2017 to December 18, 2018, the Defendant attached to the Plaintiff.

2. The sum of KRW 89,360,000 (hereinafter “the instant amount”) was paid as indicated in the date of repayment and the column for the amount of repayment on the list of appropriation of performance.

Japan: 55,00,000 won is not sufficient for the obligor to borrow the amount to the obligee by the obligor.

The above amount is promised to be repaid until November 30, 2018, and shall be held liable for civil and criminal liability in the case of the road.

C. On November 1, 2018, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a cash loan certificate stating the following (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was entitled to receive revenues from the Defendant. From January 31, 2017 to November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff lent KRW 72,850,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant, upon making partial repayment of the instant loan and preparing the instant loan certificate, paid KRW 55,000,000 to the Plaintiff additionally, and finally settled the principal and interest on the instant loan.

However, since the defendant did not pay the above KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to pay the above KRW 55,000,000,000 to the defendant as the principal lawsuit.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant borrowed the instant loan without interest agreement from the Plaintiff, and paid the Plaintiff the instant loan in excess of KRW 14,000,000, as well as paid the instant loan by paying the instant repayment to the Plaintiff.

The loan certificate of this case is by deception or coercion of the plaintiff.