2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On August 31, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred KRW 111,600,000 to the E account that the Defendant had worked as the management support team leader at C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); and (b) lent KRW 111,60,000 to the Defendant by remitting KRW 111,60,000 to three times.

E deposited the above remittance in the account of C in the name of “G”.

B. Since September 29, 2005, the Plaintiff was above KRW 120 million from C’s account around September 29, 2005.

8. The 31. 31. The repayment of the loan was made in lump sum, and September 30, 2005. 100 million won was transferred to C’s account, thereby re-lending the Defendant with KRW 100 million. Based on this, the money loan contract (Evidence A 3) was made on September 14, 2005.

C. Nevertheless, as the Defendant did not repay the above loan to the Plaintiff, the said agreement was newly made on December 6, 2006 and the said agreement was certified as a deed signed by private persons.

According to the above agreement, the starting date of repayment of the defendant is December 15, 2006.

As such, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant by means of remitting money to the account of C on September 30, 2005.

Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff and its delay damages from December 15, 2006.

(The plaintiff did not make specific arguments on the grounds that the starting point of starting damages for delay was set on December 15, 2006. However, on December 15, 2006, it is the starting point of redemption under the above agreement. 2.

A. 1) As to the formal evidence evidence Nos. 3 A (the monetary loan contract dated September 14, 2005) asserts that the authenticity of the deed signed by a private person cannot be admitted as evidence in respect of the evidence Nos. 4 (the certificate signed by a private person signed by a private person, Dec. 6, 2006), which is part of the document signed by a private person, is not recognized.

However, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of deed signed by a notary public is presumed to have been established. Supreme Court Decision 91Da35816 delivered on July 28, 1992.