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

A. On April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff to provide a large amount of future revenues while explaining the Defendant’s business. However, the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff lend money. Accordingly, on April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned an amount of KRW 450 million or more until July 2014, and the Defendant, on April 24, 2012, decided to pay KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff the principal and interest on the business funds borrowed from the Plaintiff as of April 24, 2012. After that, the Defendant, as of July 14, 2014, prepared a confirmation document confirming that the Defendant’s debt was KRW 450 million, the Defendant’s debt was KRW 500 million, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 500 million as of July 14, 2014.

B. The defendant recognized that the defendant received a part of the money from the plaintiff, but it received it as an investment deposit which is not a loan, while running a business with the defendant. The defendant asserts that the above written confirmation is invalid under the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Code, or is null and void under Article 108 (1) of the same Act as a false conspiracy mark, since it is null and void under the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the same Act, it does not bear a monetary obligation against the plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence No. 1-5, No. 2-5, and No. 5 of the judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 496,260,00 to the Defendant’s corporate bank account from April 21, 2010 to June 3, 2014, from April 21, 2010 to June 22, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 662,536,00 to the Defendant from April 21, 2010 to July 22, 2014. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the amount other than the above amount was paid to the Defendant only by the statement No. 2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(hereinafter referred to as “amount of remittance of this case”).