A. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence 2 through 8 and Gap evidence 13 through 16, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff loaned a sum of KRW 178 million to the defendant as shown in the attached Form 1 between October 7, 201 and June 1, 2012.

(B) In light of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 13 through 16, the Defendant’s payment of interest on the above loan to the Plaintiff as KRW 50 million on December 30, 201, KRW 64 million on March 4, 2013, KRW 3 million on September 5, 2013, and KRW 3 million on November 3, 2013. In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition solely on the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 20% on the ground that the Plaintiff was a major shareholder holding 20% of the Defendant’s shares and invested in the above money for the Defendant. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s payment of interest on the loan to the Plaintiff during the period from September 1, 2013 to June 25, 2017, which is the purpose of the Plaintiff’s request for change of the purport of the loan and the cause of claim, the Defendant’s payment of interest on the loan to the Plaintiff is reasonable.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, between September 23, 201 and December 8, 2011, the Defendant lent KRW 1,80,000,00 to the Defendant as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, and thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent each of the above transfers to the Defendant solely on the basis of the above recognized facts, Gap evidence No. 9, and evidence No. 13 through No. 16, although each of the entries in the separate sheet No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12 was recognized, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent each of the above transfers to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff.