1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the amount from October 31, 2017 to February 21, 2019.

1. The fact that the Defendant, from August 2013, operated the “D Council member” in Busan Metropolitan Government Da from around August 2013, and the fact that the Plaintiff, while working as the office at the above Council member, was retired from office around April 20, 2017, is no dispute between the parties.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff, upon receipt of the Defendant’s obligation to return the investment deposit, decided to make an investment in the fund through the Defendant, and paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 50 million on August 25, 2016 and August 26, 2016, and that the Defendant agreed to return the principal amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff around April 7, 2017, upon occurrence of losses thereafter. There is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages.

3. As to the defendant's counterclaim and counterclaim

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2016, and thus, the Defendant’s loan claim is offset against the Plaintiff’s above claim.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the above investment amount was extinguished, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 1 evidence, the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff’s account on October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s lending KRW 100 million to E on October 27, 2016, 10% per annum, delay damages, 25% per annum, and due date for payment on December 27, 2016. The Defendant’s No. notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (Law No. 507, Law Firm F2016) is established.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant and lent it to E, so the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above borrowed amount to the Defendant.

In addition, since the above loan claims of the defendant and the plaintiff's above loan claims are in a set-off after they reached the maturity date, the plaintiff's above loan claims were extinguished upon the defendant's declaration of set-off.