1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 8,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 23, 2015 to May 31, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2014, the Defendant prepared a written complaint against the Plaintiff and received it by mail at the Ansan Police Station on March 31, 2014.

The above accusation stated that “the Defendant prepared a loan certificate of KRW 10,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) from the Newan Mutual Savings Bank located in Seoul on November 30, 2012, and that “The Defendant applied for a false payment order against the Defendant for a loan of KRW 10,000,000 against the Defendant at the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch on November 4, 2013, on the basis of the instant loan certificate, which C had been placed in the de facto waterway bank, the Plaintiff applied for a false payment order against the Defendant for a loan of KRW 10,00,000 against the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff is punished as a fraudulent lawsuit and a crime of embezzlement of stolen objects.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not prepare the instant loan certificate to C, but did not prepare it to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant on the ground of the instant loan certificate that the Defendant did not pay the money even after April 30, 2013, the repayment period for the instant loan certificate was due.

Nevertheless, the defendant, for the purpose of criminal punishment of the plaintiff, submitted a written complaint to an investigative agency for the above contents, thereby making the plaintiff dismissed.

The above act of the defendant was revealed in the investigative agency, and the plaintiff was judged to be innocent, and the defendant was prosecuted for a false accusation and was sentenced to a suspended sentence, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

B. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 10,00,000 against the Defendant on the ground of the instant loan loan certificate. However, the Defendant raised an objection to the foregoing payment order, and the Defendant was implementing the said application for the payment order as a lawsuit, and was proceeding with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Branch 2014No9203, the Defendant sought the return of the amount paid to the Plaintiff in excess of the Interest Limitation Act.