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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the construction business, and the Defendant is a joint representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) that is a legal entity that runs the real estate sales business.

B. On August 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales agency and a contract for civil construction works related to the factory site development project with respect to approximately KRW 32,000 of H Day in the time of emulation owned by G with G.g.

C. G transferred totaling KRW 4,332,373,376 to the Plaintiff during 17 times from August 12, 2009 to May 11, 2010.

On September 17, 2010, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 3.2 billion from the Hean Agricultural Cooperative on the same day and remitted KRW 2 billion to the corporate bank account (Account No. E) in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

E. On February 23, 201, the Defendant transferred KRW 77,000,000 to I, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and KRW 225,00,000 to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2011, via the deposit account in the name of the Nonghyup Bank, the spouse of the Defendant.

F. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 407,093,764 to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant or to the account designated by the Defendant from August 19, 2011 to April 4, 2013, such as remitting KRW 50 million to the Defendant on November 19, 201 and KRW 50 million on April 4, 2013.

G. The Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million on November 23, 2012, and KRW 1 million on April 2, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 15, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant on November 19, 2012, and KRW 50 million on April 4, 2013. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan KRW 100 million and the damages for delay.

B. In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that the above amount was a loan solely on the ground that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant a total of KRW 100 million on Nov. 19, 2012, and KRW 50 million on Apr. 4, 2013, 201.