1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 7, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 22, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to lease the Plaintiff’s Defendant’s mother’s F and D ground E (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) of KRW 200,000,000 from September 7, 2009 to December 22, 2009; (b) paid KRW 21,50,000 to C as the lease deposit; and (c) on December 22, 2009, entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C as to the Plaintiff’s F and D ground E (hereinafter “F) with the period of lease from January 1, 2010 to December 12, 2010.

B. On December 23, 2009, with respect to the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case, the Plaintiff drafted an authentic deed of debt repayment (quasi-loan) agreement between the Defendant and a notary public H on December 23, 2009, stating that “The Defendant recognized that he was liable to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and fully repay that amount until December 21, 2010. In the event the Defendant fails to perform his monetary obligation under this contract, he was immediately aware that there was no objection even if he was subject to compulsory execution.”

C. On May 2013, when the Plaintiff was managing and operating the Gyeong-gun I’s request for the management and operation of the Gyeong-gun I’s ground management and operation by C, the Plaintiff was transferred from C to 700 million won, and the Plaintiff agreed to move C to the F’s ground building located in Gyeong-gun, not Gyeong-gun, and complete the internal construction, and then the Plaintiff was able to open J from the above building to the police officer on early 2014.

(hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”). D.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff managed and operated E and J until 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (if there is an additional number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200 million of the lease deposit of this case by December 21, 2010, as seen earlier. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.