1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance falling under the following order of payment:

1. As to the cause of claim

A. The fact of recognition that D, the Defendant omitted, was incorporated in the first instance trial joint Defendant B (hereinafter “B”), and immediately thereafter, the Defendant was registered as the representative director of the said company from September 2010 to October 10, 201. However, in March 2011, the Defendant sought a loan of B’s business funds by finding the Plaintiff, who was the mother of the said company, and making a payment six months later. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 47 million to B’s account in the name of March 21, 2011, may be recognized by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to each of the statements (including the paper numbers) as set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 4 (including the paper numbers).

B. Determination 1) B was a company within a half year from the date established as of March 2011. The Plaintiff appears to have remitted money to the Defendant’s account designated by the Defendant with the intent to lend money to the Defendant at the request of the Defendant, a private village student, in the absence of well-known knowledge of the business activities or assets, etc. of B. Thus, the Plaintiff deemed to have lent money to the Defendant on March 21, 2011 with the maturity of payment of KRW 47 million after six months. (2) If the Plaintiff agreed to lend the interest at the time of lending money to the Defendant with the interest of KRW 70,000 (17.87% per annum) per annum from September 21, 2012 to the pronouncement date of the first instance judgment. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay pursuant to the rate as from September 21, 2012 to the date of the first instance judgment is insufficient to recognize the existence of the interest agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(No disposition document concerning interest agreement exists, and reference materials are also insufficient to support the existence of interest agreement after the closing date of pleadings at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial. 3) Accordingly, the defendant claims against the plaintiff as of September 21, 2012, which the plaintiff seeks after the due date for the payment of KRW 47 million and thereafter, about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to perform.