(a) The following facts are not disputed between the Parties or recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

1) On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant who purchased Songdo Officetel (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) setting forth a loan transaction agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, setting forth the loan agreement rate of KRW 154,54,00 on December 10, 209, the loan principal of KRW 154,54,00, and the date of loan commencement as of December 10, 2009, the loan agreement rate of KRW 1.5% on the loan agreement rate of KRW 3 months on December 31, 2011, and the maximum rate of delay damages rate of KRW 19% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”).

) From December 10, 2009, the above loan was executed (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) On or after March 1, 2015, the interest rate in arrears is 13.05%, and until January 6, 2016, the interest rate in this case is 240,313,742 won (i.e., the interest rate in arrears of KRW 154,54,540,000, the interest rate in this case is 85,769,742 won).

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 240,313,742 (i.e., the principal of the loan principal of KRW 154,544,769,742) and the principal of the loan of KRW 154,544,00 among the loan principal of KRW 154,54,740,00, the agreed interest rate of KRW 13.05% per annum from January 7, 2016 to February 1, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The loan transaction agreement of this case is concluded by the Defendant for the part payment of the sales contract concluded with Korea Assets Trust Co., Ltd., and is incorporated into the sales contract and integrated with the sales contract. Therefore, the loan transaction agreement of this case should also be terminated where the above sales contract is cancelled or cancelled.

B. Where the Defendant loses the benefit under the loan transaction agreement of this case, the principal and interest of this case to be repaid to the Plaintiff.