1. As to KRW 177,967,620 and KRW 110,196,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from March 2, 2016 to April 8, 2016.

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 110,196,000 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 - Interest rate of 2.5% (based on loan date: 4.29% per annum): 19% per annum on December 31, 201: 19% per annum.

B. The Defendant did not repay the principal and interest of the above loan, and the Plaintiff’s loan balance against the Defendant as of March 1, 2016 is as follows.

10,196,00 won 67,771,620 won 17,967,620 interest rate of 14.05% per annum 14.05% per annum of interest rate of 17,967,620 won (based on recognition: Each statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings)

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 177,967,620 as well as the principal of KRW 110,196,00 as to the Plaintiff from March 2, 2016 to April 8, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, the agreed ratio of KRW 14.05%, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date 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 loan agreement of this case constitutes a collective loan for the payment of intermediate payment during the sales contract, and therefore, the agreement of this case is included in the sales contract of this case, so if the sales contract of this case is cancelled, the agreement of this case also becomes extinct.

However, the sales contract of the instant officetel was revoked, which led to the termination of the instant loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks a direct return of the loan to the defendant.