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

A. On October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant KRW 30 million on November 14, 2014; and (b) KRW 169,290,000 on February 11, 2014 at interest rate of KRW 13% on a yearly basis; and (c) received a certificate of loan (Evidence 4) issued from the Defendant, stating the loan amount of KRW 169,00 on February 11, 2014 as KRW 169,00,000; (d) the repayment period of KRW 13% on August 11, 2014; and (e) the amount of KRW 13% on a yearly basis.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff from February 17, 2014 to the same year from the Defendant.

6. Until June 17, 200, a total of KRW 38,500,000 was paid with respect to the above loan. If the loan was appropriated for the principal and interest of the loan in this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 137,101,059 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 13% per annum from June 18, 2014 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, which is the day following the last repayment date, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

C. Even if it is not proved that the plaintiff, based on legitimate supplementary right, supplemented the loan amount and interest rate under Gap evidence No. 4 (G. 4), the following amount should be recognized at least:

In other words, from October 23, 2013 to April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 202,505,00 to the Defendant. From November 26, 2013 to June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 64,050,000 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the board of directors, the Defendant was making profits through an illegal sports gambling at the time. However, the Plaintiff only provided the Defendant with the instant money under the pretext of raising profits through the above sports gambling, and lending the said money to the Defendant.