1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from March 31, 2017 to February 2, 2018, and 3, from February 3, 2018, to Plaintiff A’s KRW 10,000,000, and its amount.

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s loan claim against the Defendant

A. On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff A lent KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant. 2) On January 15, 2017, the Defendant prepared and issued a certificate of borrowing that the Defendant promised to pay KRW 10,000,000 borrowed from Plaintiff A by March 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 3, 12, and Gap evidence 6

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 10,00,000 and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from March 31, 2017 to February 2, 2018, which is clearly indicated that it is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint from March 31, 2017 to February 2, 2018, and the following day from February 3, 2018 to the day of full payment.

2. As to the remainder of the claim except for the loan claim of Plaintiff A and the claim of Plaintiff B

A. On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant entered into a fund investment contract with the content as indicated in the separate sheet. (2) On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant’s Cit Bank account, KRW 10,000,000 on September 3, 2015, and KRW 10,000 to the Defendant’s Kit Bank account.

3) On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff B transferred KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant’s Cit Bank account. On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff B received a receipt from the Defendant that the Defendant received all 50,000,000 investment money from the Defendant, while paying USD 25,30 in cash from the Defendant in Mongolia U.S. U.S. dollars. (4) prior to November 2, 2015, the Defendant left the message “I will be able to draw and draw the remainder of the duplicing and duplicing the Plaintiff through E dialogue.”

Plaintiff

On June 16, 2016, A asked the Defendant to “open to the next week” through E dialogue, the Defendant respondeded to the “Irlves.”

[Reasons for Recognition]