A. In the case of Seoul High Court 2015Na2016826 (principal lawsuit), 2015Na201683 (Counterclaim), between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant (the Defendant of this case) paid to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) 247,00,000 and 5% per annum from October 17, 2013 to January 6, 2014; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “loan Claim”). The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount of 550,912 won as unjust enrichment from the use of a motor vehicle, and 335,421 won among them, with 335,421% interest per annum from January 27, 2015 to February 13, 2015 to 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “the amount of unjust enrichment”).

B. On March 5, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 278,497,580 among the instant loan claims with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Deposit”). C.

On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff accepted the instant deposit and appropriated the instant deposit for the principal and interest of the instant loan claims, and set off the instant loan claims remaining after being appropriated as above against the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on an equal amount with the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment, and notified the Defendant thereof on April 25, 2016.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a provisional disposition against the Defendant by the competent court No. 2013Kahap154 and Daejeon High Court No. 2014Ra38, against which the Plaintiff lost the Defendant.

In relation to this, the Defendant filed an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under this Court 2016Kao261, and the decision that “the Plaintiff determined that the amount of litigation costs to be repaid to the Defendant is KRW 3,111,654” was finalized on December 22, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the determination of the amount of litigation costs of this case, and the defendant's claim based on this determination is the defendant's claim for litigation costs of this case). E

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s repayment and set-off are the remainder.