1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s 20% per annum from April 25, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff Company was established with the total amount of KRW 270,000,000, the ordinary shares of KRW 10,000, the total amount of capital, and KRW 270,00,000.

B. On February 2013, the Defendant purchased 6,800 shares issued from the Plaintiff as a strategic investor.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the primary cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a share price of 68 million won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that, in order to facilitate the implementation of the project for creating the general industrial complex located in the east-si, east-si, Yang-si, Yang-si, the defendant is only a formal shareholder who lends only the name of the shareholder in order to enhance the efficiency of sale as the plaintiff was established as a special purpose corporation, the implementer of the project, using the document as the body of the defendant, which is the implementer of the project.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant was a shareholder in the form of lending only the name of the shareholder in the statement No. 1 and witness A's testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable

Next, the defendant asserts that even if the defendant is the beneficial owner, the defendant paid the share price of KRW 68 million to the plaintiff on February 27, 2013.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 and witness Gap's testimony, the defendant can be recognized that he remitted 68 million won to the plaintiff's account on February 27, 2013. Accordingly, the defendant can be deemed to have performed the obligation to pay shares themselves. Thus, the defendant's above assertion has merit.

3. In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings in witness Gap's testimony, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff Eul paid the share price deposited in the defendant's name with the plaintiff's funds on behalf of the defendant at the time, so-called lump sum payment.