A. Defendant B: (a) as to KRW 518,00,000 and KRW 418,000 among them, from December 31, 2010 to 10,000; and (b) as to KRW 418,00,00.

A. The Plaintiff’s loan 1) from August 2, 2007 to January 28, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 1,586,002,50 in total to Defendant B at the interest rate of KRW 3% per month or 5% per month (the above loan 1,586,002,50,500 is the actual amount that did not consider part of the advance interest deduction.

The plaintiff is as follows 2. A.

Since the actual payment is deemed as the leased principal, as described in the paragraph, and part of the amount that has not been repaid is claimed, the said actual payment shall be deemed as the leased principal as sought by the Plaintiff.

hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”).

(2) B) From August 2, 2007 to May 2, 2009, as indicated below, repaid KRW 978,660,000 out of the instant loans to the Plaintiff as indicated in the following specification of transactions.

[Transaction List: Detailed Statement of Transactions: 169,000 won - Corporate Bank E from August 2, 2007 to January 9, 2008 - from August 2007 to January 28, 2009 1,417,001,500 won from August 2, 2007 to May 2, 2009 to May 2, 2009, in aggregate of KRW 1,586,00,000 in total from August 2, 2007 to May 2, 2009.

B. Agreement 1 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on September 5, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants at the time of lending KRW 380 million on September 5, 2007, as follows (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (former trade name: F., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”)

3) The Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s GaviK (IBK) Capital (former trade name: Gavi Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., hereinafter “Bag Capital”).

The principal of the Defendant Company’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 376 million is to take over the Defendant Company’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 400 million and to receive additional loan amounting to KRW 400 million. The Plaintiff’s apartment land owned by the Plaintiff (Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu G No. 22, No. 61, hereinafter referred to as “the case”).