1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant based on the loan stated in the separate sheet shall be KRW 12,193,211 and its corresponding amount.

1. Under the underlying facts, each of the following facts is not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11, and each of the facts stated in Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 6, which seems to be partly contrary, is likely to believe that the interest rate is reduced within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act due to the nature of the authentic deed, and there is no other counter-proof.

From September 11, 2012 to June 20, 2015, the Defendant lent 92,550,000 won in total to the Plaintiff at an interest rate of 7% or 5% per month from September 11, 2015, as shown in the separate loan list. For each loan listed in the separate loan list Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11, only the remainder after deducting interest at an interest rate of 1 month calculated at an interest rate of 7% per month was paid to the Plaintiff. For each loan listed in the separate list No. 15, 19, 22, 23, 25, and 26, only the remainder calculated at an interest rate of 5% per month was paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant each amount indicated in the “payment” column in the attached table of payment appropriation to the Defendant on each date indicated in the attached table of payment appropriation.

However, among the amount of reimbursement stated in the above statement of appropriation of performance, the phrase “the disposal of the advance interest” or “the inclusion of the advance interest in the amount of payment” in the remarks column would be as follows.

The loan is recognized as a repayment interest rate of KRW 250,00,000, which is deducted from each prior interest set forth in paragraph (1). However, the loan set forth in No. 19 of the attached Table No. 19 should be treated as a prior interest rate of KRW 250,000 on the loan, but the Plaintiff did not assert it as a repayment, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,40,000 on September 20, 2012, but the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,00,000 on the same day, and thus, the amount of KRW 1,00,000 on an equal amount for the convenience of calculation was set up only as a repayment amount of KRW 140,000,000 on the same day, and instead, the attached table of appropriation for payment was drawn up.