A. On January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35 million to a D deposit account designated by the Defendant under the name of the wife C, and on September 21, 2009, KRW 50 million out of the HK Savings Bank’s KRW 150 million out of the credit loans and KRW 100 million out of the amount of KRW 150 million out of the amount of KRW HK Savings Bank appears to be a housing mortgage loan.

B The loan received on September 22, 2009, and then transferred each of the amounts of KRW 50 million, KRW 45 million, and KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s deposit account.

B. On September 22, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) stating that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 185 million to the Defendant by December 30, 2010.

C. On August 31, 2015, the Defendant was granted the exemption from the Seoul Central District Court 2014,504, and the discontinuation of bankruptcy and the exemption from immunity in the case of declaration of bankruptcy 2014Hadan504, and thereafter, the exemption from immunity became final and conclusive. The list of creditors of the exemption case is not indicated by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, while lending KRW 35 million and KRW 150 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff received the loan certificate of this case from the Defendant while not receiving it, the Plaintiff sought payment of the total amount of the loan of this case KRW 185 million and the delay damages therefrom.

As to this, the Defendant received a proposal from F, a major shareholder and representative director of E (E), to sell E’s shares in an over-the-counter market and guarantee a certain amount of profit. While the Defendant kept approximately one million shares of FF’s E in the treasury of G’s office, the Defendant sold the shares in the name of the Defendant or K, and deposited the shares to F, and the shares are sold in the manner of delivery to the buyer. While the Plaintiff invested in E and the Defendant sold the shares in the manner of delivery to the buyer, the Plaintiff invested in E, and the Plaintiff traded shares using the Plaintiff’s deposit account and the securities account, and the Plaintiff traded shares with the new investor or the new purchaser.