1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from November 1, 2016 to June 5, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 250 million to C (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the account in the name of the Defendant designated by C, and transferred the same to C.

On March 22, 2016, the Defendant prepared a letter stating that the instant loan will be repaid by October 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant letter”) and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 1, 2016 to June 5, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserts that “The time limit for the submission of each of the instant statements was fixed by the time limit for the closure of the litigation between the Defendant and the U.S. A. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C. A.C.C. A.C. A.C.C. Co., Ltd. at the time of the preparation of each of the instant statements.

The above argument is without merit.

B. Offset 1) The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff, in collusion with D, or alone belongs to a new grain, or belongs to a mixture of old grain and new grain, and thus, it constitutes a tort to supply the defendant with a new grain." Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant offsets the claim for the loan of this case against the damage claim held by the plaintiff. 2) The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The above assertion is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion is accepted on the grounds of the reasoning.