1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its related year from April 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

9. up to 30.0% per annum.

1. Following the facts of recognition may be recognized by adding together the purpose of the entire pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to return it to the Plaintiff by September 16, 2014.

B. The Defendant’s interest in KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff as of August 17, 2014

9. Each of the 16.16. agreed to pay KRW 5,000,000.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant from April 2, 2015, which was the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff against the above KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff, and the same year, barring special circumstances.

9. For the period of 30.30., 20% per annum under the former Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant merely received the above KRW 50,00,000 as investment money, and the Defendant’s certificate No. 1 (cash storage certificate) stating the intent to return it to the Plaintiff was prepared by requesting the Plaintiff to prepare it formally by presenting to the Plaintiff’s wife only. The Defendant asserts that the above declaration of intention is invalid by a false declaration of intent in collusion with the Plaintiff.

In light of the fact that testimony on the process of preparing Gap evidence C and D's evidence No. 1 (cash storage certificate) does not coincide with each other, and that Gap evidence No. 1 (cash storage certificate) signed and sealed it to joint and several sureties, the witness C and D's testimony that seem to conform to the above facts of the defendant's assertion is difficult to believe as it is, and the statement No. 1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2 are insufficient to recognize the above facts of the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition.