1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,765,956 and KRW 16,616,715 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 18,76 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 19,00 per annum from May 31, 2012 to January 7, 2015.

1. The facts of recognition that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the sum of KRW 9,770,000 on December 26, 2009, KRW 20 million on December 28, 2009, KRW 20 million on December 31, 2009, KRW 20 million on a yearly interest rate of KRW 19.99% on December 31, 2009, and KRW 3 years on a three-year period for repayment; the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 9,770,00 on December 12, 209, as indicated in the “Date of Performance” column for the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance, does not conflict between the respective parties.

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 the above borrowed principal of KRW 20 million and the principal remaining after being appropriated in the order of the interest rate under the agreement from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the date of the final loan sought by the plaintiff, to the date of repayment, in the order of interest and principal, and the calculation thereof is as shown in the attached table of satisfaction

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal of KRW 18,765,956 (i.e., principal of KRW 16,616,715 and interest KRW 2,149,241) and damages for delay under the agreed interest rate calculated at the rate of 19.9% per annum from May 31, 2012 to January 7, 2015, which is the delivery date of the complaint, as to the principal of KRW 16,616,715 (i.e., the principal of KRW 16,616,715), and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19.9% per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 19.9% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The Defendant, from around 207 to May 30, 2012, sold food and alcoholic beverage to the Plaintiff, and the credit amount of which was KRW 24 million to KRW 25 million. The Defendant asserted that the credit amount of the Plaintiff’s credit payment claim against the Plaintiff and the loan claim against the Plaintiff against the Defendant set off on an equal amount. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as having a credit payment claim as alleged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is within the scope of the above recognition.