A. Defendant B’s KRW 115,800,000 and interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from December 31, 2014 to the date of full payment.

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant B drafted a certificate of loan (hereinafter “the instant certificate of loan”) stating that Defendant B would borrow KRW 150,000,000 at the face value, and the due date for payment, August 25, 2014, and the issuer D’s representative director C (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) around August 2014, Defendant B agreed to borrow KRW 140,000,000 from the Plaintiff and KRW 25% per annum on August 25, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant certificate of loan”).

B. On September 2, 2014, Defendant C, the issuer of the Promissory Notes of this case, agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000, which is part of the face value of the Promissory Notes of this case, to the Plaintiff. Of them, KRW 10,000,000 shall be paid on the same day, and the remaining KRW 40,00,000 shall be repaid until November 10, 2014, and the interest shall be paid by 2% per month, and each of the above contents (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

C. On the other hand, on December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to be supplied with equipment equivalent to KRW 24,200,000 at the market price from Defendant B, and to deduct the amount equivalent to the said equipment from the principal of the borrowed amount with the instant loan certificate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As long as a judgment on the cause of the claim is recognized to be authentic in its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable proof of denial of the content stated in the disposition document.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff was provided with equipment equivalent to KRW 24,200,000 at the market price from Defendant B on December 30, 2014. In light of the foregoing legal principles, the Plaintiff, according to the loan certificate of this case, determined KRW 140,00,000 to Defendant B on or around August 28, 2014, and leased KRW 25 per annum. The Plaintiff was provided with equipment equivalent to KRW 24,200,000 at the market price from Defendant B on or around December 30, 2014, and the amount equivalent to the said equipment is the principal of the loan.