1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 153,702,846 as well as KRW 24% per annum from December 15, 2012 to the date of full payment.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant have been aware of the facts which are premised on (the fact that there is no dispute) before several years, and C is the defendant's assistance.

On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the account of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”), the representative of C, to the accounts of the Plaintiff.

On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to C’s account.

The defendant argued that the above KRW 150 million is a loan to his own bank of a conflict, and filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of a loan and a fraudulent act against the person who acquired the real estate owned by the bank of a conflict and the bank of a conflict of interests by acquiring the real estate.

The plaintiff won the case of the LABD, but the judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that the defendant's claim for E, etc. is not admitted to the loan claim (the decision that the above money was a loan to the plaintiff's LABD) or the plaintiff's loan to the plaintiff did not have any excess

(1) The first instance court: Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gahap3946 decided May 1, 2014; the appellate court: Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na29379 decided May 1, 2015). 2. Issues

A. Whether the debtor of the plaintiff's loan is the defendant

(b) The balance of loan bonds;

3. Determination

A. The argument that the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request, lent money to the Defendant’s account at the Defendant’s request, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was the Defendant, upon the Defendant’s introduction, lent the loan to the Plaintiff’s account, and C directly pays the interest to the Plaintiff at the time of the loan, and thereafter, remitted the money to the Plaintiff directly as interest amounting to KRW 7.5 million on August 17, 2012, and KRW 3 million on December 14, 2012 (founded: grounds for recognition: 1 and 2) is consistent with the Plaintiff’s argument.

However, the following facts, which are acknowledged as a whole in the statement No. 3-9 and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, can be known from the above facts.