1. As to KRW 396,573,02 and KRW 260,013,00 among them, the Defendant shall annually pay to the Plaintiff KRW 396,573,02 from July 2, 2015 to July 30, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant with the following terms, and on December 10, 2009, loaned KRW 260,013,000 to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement” and its loan claims are referred to as “the instant loan claims”). Interest rate: Interest rate: Interest rate on MOR - expiration date of 2.5% loan period: Maximum damages rate on December 31, 201: 19% per annum.

B. The Defendant did not repay the principal and interest of the above loan, and as of July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s loan balance against the Defendant is as follows.

The balance of the loan principal and the legal expenses for delay shall be 260,013,00 won 135,505,952 won 1,054,070 won 396,573,02

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal of KRW 396,573,02 and the principal of KRW 260,013,00 among the principal and interest of KRW 260,00 from July 2, 2015 to July 30, 2015, the agreed ratio of KRW 14.05%, and the annual rate of KRW 20 per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to September 30, 2015, and delay damages calculated at 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 1, 2015 to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the claim 1) The loan agreement of this case in Chapter 1 is as follows: Btel sold by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

The instant loan agreement constitutes a collective loan for the payment of intermediate payments among the sales contracts, and therefore, the instant agreement is incorporated into the instant sales contract, and thus, the instant agreement is also terminated in cases where the instant sales contract for officetels is cancelled.

However, the sales contract of the instant officetel was revoked, which led to this agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.