1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 30 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 8, 2017 to October 11, 2018; and (b) from the following day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Until June 2015, the Defendant is working as an employee of the fund-raising company, which is a fund-raising company, and attracts investment funds from the Plaintiff, etc.

In the latter part of the second half of 2015, the Korea Development Bank Co., Ltd. established a DBA which is a similar receiver.

B. Although non-performing loans can not be created within a short period because the legal relationship is complicated or has a high risk of loss, the Defendant in collusion with the representative E of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. until June 2015, the Defendant received KRW 50 million in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and KRW 30 million in the name of D Co., Ltd. and KRW 30 million in the name of D Co., Ltd., including the following table, by inducing the Plaintiff to pay the investment funds at the maturity of one year.

On December 16, 2014, 200,000 won, the temporary amount of 1.2 million won, 200,000 won, each of which, on December 16, 2014, 3, 2014, 〃 3,000,000 won on December 24, 2014, 4, 〃 4.2 million won on January 9, 19, 2015, 〃 5, 4,000 won on June 5, 2015, 〃 6.4 million won on June 5, 2015, 〃 7,000 won on November 3, 2015, 8,000 won, aggregate of KRW 6.5 million on November 7, 2016, 5,000 won.

C. From August 5, 2015, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 42.4 million to the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall file a complaint with the plaintiff et al.

It was found guilty in the case of fraud, etc. in Busan District Court Branch 2017Kadan2572 due to the criminal facts, including the defraudation of the amount Nos. 7 and 8 of the Table.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 12-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff argued by the parties that he suffered damages by deceiving the defendant's deception, and only he received a total of KRW 42.4 million, and the principal was not repaid at all.

It asserts that there was a loss equivalent to the remittance amount in the table Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 (hereinafter only the sequences) in the table of this paragraph.

In this regard, the defendant's 1,3, and 5 out of the amount claimed by the plaintiff shall be the amount invested in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. working for the defendant.