A. (i) The Plaintiff remitted to Defendant B a total of KRW 495,00,000 by the end of September 27, 2006, including the transfer of KRW 200,000,000 to November 13, 2006, and KRW 495,00,000 by the end of 206.

B. Defendant B received a promissory note of KRW 1 billion at a face value around 2009, from piracy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maritime”) and thereafter paid KRW 136,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2009, KRW 30,000 on September 30, 2009, KRW 46,00,000 on September 11, 2009, and KRW 136,00,000 on September 14, 2010, KRW 10,000 on September 14, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B should pay the remainder of the loan and delay damages, excluding the amount of KRW 136 million paid by the Plaintiff, out of the above loan 495 million, as the Plaintiff loaned KRW 500 million to Defendant B, while Defendant B would invest KRW 1 billion in piracy. As such, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 495 million to Defendant B.

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole in the statement of evidence Nos. 1, 1 and 5, that is, the above KRW 495 million was stated as the investment principal in the statement of settlement made between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, and even according to the plaintiff's own assertion, the defendant Eul made the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant Eul would return a considerable amount of money of KRW 2 billion as well as the principal repayment after the future," and it appears to be an agreement on the allocation of investment profits rather than the interest agreement on the loan, and the plaintiff did not have any provision on the repayment period and interest rate of KRW 495 million with respect to the above KRW 495 million, the above claim of the plaintiff is without merit.

Dor. Dor. Dor. Dor.