1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s loan obligations based on a loan for consumption as of January 6, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, 90,007.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 6, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 460 million from the Defendant at an interest rate of 3% per month (hereinafter “the instant loan for consumption”).

The Defendant, from January 6, 2010 to June 5, 2010, delivered to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 400 million after deducting the interest of KRW 60 million from the above borrowed money.

B. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 564 million in the name of the principal and interest of the loan under the instant loan for consumption (hereinafter “instant loan”).

The amount of debt repayment date of KRW 30 million on September 15, 2010 and KRW 70 million on September 15, 2010; KRW 4 million on September 15, 201; KRW 4 million on March 22, 2011; KRW 64 million on July 14, 201, KRW 40 million on July 14, 2011; KRW 564 million on April 34, 2012; and the purport of all pleadings is without dispute over KRW 564 million on April 4, 2012; KRW 7,8, and KRW 1 million on the ground of recognition; and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff agreed to borrow KRW 460 million from the Defendant pursuant to the instant loan for consumption, but the amount actually paid after deducting KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s prior interest of KRW 60 million per month is KRW 400 million. Thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to regard KRW 400 million as the principal of the loan as the principal and calculate interest.

B. In addition to the instant repayment amounting to KRW 564 million, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million on February 24, 2012, KRW 30 million on June 19, 2012, and KRW 130 million on June 22, 2012.

C. If the above amount is appropriated in sequence to the interest and the principal of the borrowed amount calculated with the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, and the borrowed amount under the loan for consumption in this case is fully repaid and extinguished, the defendant must seek confirmation on the existence of the debt.

On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 66.6 million in total, including KRW 22 million, KRW 2.2 million on May 30, 2010, and KRW 6.6 million on July 30, 2010. However, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove it by itself, the Plaintiff did not include it in the method of appropriation of performance, and thus, did not separately determine this.

In addition, the plaintiff is the representative C and the president of the defendant.