1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall pay the amount of KRW 81,224,286 and KRW 47,466,865 among them from April 9, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. The occurrence of debts;

A. On June 5, 2009, the Plaintiff (the former mutual savings bank: Samyang Bank) loaned loans to the Defendant A as follows:

(hereinafter “instant loan”). Amount of loan: 50,000,000 won on June 5, 2010: Loan interest rate of June 5, 2010 (after this end, until December 5, 2012): 14% interest rate per annum: 26% per annum.

B. On June 5, 2009, Defendant B guaranteed a comprehensive continuing obligation with Defendant A, to the extent of KRW 65,000,000, with respect to Defendant A’s present and future obligations, including the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff.

C. After Defendant A partly repaid the principal and interest of the instant loan on March 27, 2013, Defendant A did not repay the instant loan obligations until now.

As of April 8, 2015, the balance of the instant loan remains KRW 47,466,865 of the loan principal, KRW 8,68,908 of the failed principal, KRW 25,08,513 of the accrued interest, and KRW 25,08,513 of the accrued interest.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense of repayment

A. The Defendants’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 13,230,000 to the Plaintiff the principal of each of the instant loans.

(1) KRW 4,500,000 on August 3, 2011 (2) 4,380,000 on September 27, 201 (3) 3, 200 on November 14, 2011

B. According to the evidence No. 1, the fact that the money was transferred from the account of the Cvalescent operated by Defendant A to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendants, is recognized.

However, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the above KRW 13,230,000, which the Defendants repaid to the Plaintiff, is not the repayment of the obligation of the instant loan, but the repayment of the loan to D on November 3, 2010.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion to the effect that the Defendants paid additional loans of this case.

3. Conclusion