A. From November 8, 2011 to April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 245,000,000 to the Defendant for a total of six times. The Defendant agreed to immediately redeem the factory site D (hereinafter “instant factory site”) sold.

However, even though the factory site of this case was sold on December 20, 2013, the Defendant failed to repay the loan.

The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid loan amounting to KRW 245,00,000 and damages for delay from December 21, 2013, which is the day following the sale of the above factory site.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and 8 (including the relevant branch numbers), the fact that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 245,00,000 to the defendant (the trade name at the time of lending was "C" but changed to the current trade name as of July 27, 2015) is recognized, but it is recognized that the loan amount of KRW 245,00,000 was made on the date when the defendant agreed to pay the above loan immediately after the factory site in this case is sold (the loan amount) on November 50, 201, and the loan amount of KRW 45,00,000,000 on December 6, 200.

4. 50,000,000

3. 50,000,000

3. 16.20,000,000

4.30,000,000 Aggregates 245,000,000 do not have any evidence to acknowledge that it is 245,00,000.

C. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 22, 2016, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on which the Plaintiff demanded the payment of the above loans, to the Plaintiff, for the foregoing obligations with no fixed time limit of KRW 245,00,000, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day when the instant judgment was rendered until July 20, 2017, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation.

2. The defendant's assertion arises in relation to the defendant's legal entity E, the former representative director of the defendant.