1. The Defendant’s KRW 370,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 31, 2010 to March 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The present representative director C (name D before the opening name) of the defendant is the plaintiff's wife, and the defendant is the company for mineral extraction, processing, and manufacture sales business. C was issued a loan certificate as of April 28, 2008 with the purport that around June 30, 2008, the defendant borrowed KRW 370 million from C from the defendant around June 2008 to the effect that the defendant borrowed KRW 370 million from C from the defendant, and the loan certificate as of June 30, 2008 to the effect that if C invests in the above money and claims for the recovery of the investment, the defendant shall return it to the defendant.

On March 30, 2009, when the Plaintiff came to know that C provided the above large amount of money without one’s own account, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant, and on March 30, 2009, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing from the Plaintiff that the Defendant borrowed KRW 370 million from the Plaintiff on March 30, 2010 (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4 and Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at each rate of KRW 370 million with 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from March 31, 2010 to March 22, 2016, which is clearly indicated in the record that it is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from March 31, 2010, and with 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. A summary of the assertion that the Defendant lent the above KRW 370 million to the Defendant is not the Plaintiff.

The defendant appointed C as the representative director of the defendant in order to secure the repayment of the loan, and only the plaintiff prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case for the purpose of reference on March 2009.

The loan certificate of this case is prepared in a false manner, and the plaintiff is the defendant.