1. The primary Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 493,60,000 and KRW 210,000,000 among them. From October 30, 2015, the primary Defendant shall be repaid to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts A) On September 5, 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150,000,000 to the conjunctive Defendant on October 5, 2005 as the due date for the repayment of KRW 150,00,000 to the primary Defendant, under the name of the primary Defendant’s business funds. However, the primary Defendant requested the Plaintiff to lend additional loans on the grounds that the said loans were not repaid until the due date for the payment of the loans became difficult, and that the financial situation became difficult. Accordingly, on December 10, 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to the primary Defendant, where the primary Defendant is working as the representative director, on December 20, 2005. However, the primary and conjunctive Defendant failed to repay each of the above loans.

Accordingly, on October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff and the primary Defendant additionally lent KRW 10,000,000 to the primary Defendant. However, the Plaintiff entered into a loan contract with KRW 210,000 ( KRW 150,000,000,000 in total) by adding the loans to the primary and conjunctive Defendant together with the loans to the said primary and conjunctive Defendant. The repayment period was December 30, 2006, and the interest rate was 2% per month.

C) The principal Defendant paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff around October 2009, and KRW 155,000,000 on August 20, 2012, and the Plaintiff appropriated the said money for interest on the loan claims. (D) The interest and delay damages accrued up to October 29, 2015 are KRW 283,60,000 [210,00,000 x interest x interest x interest 2% x interest x 12 months x 9 years (15,00,000 won ?5,000,000), respectively.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Claim against the primary defendant;

A. On the grounds that the primary Defendant’s main defense was not repaid to the primary and primary Defendant, the primary Defendant’s assertion that the primary and primary Defendant filed a complaint against the conjunctive Defendant in fraud. Thereafter, on August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff withdrawn the complaint against the conjunctive Defendant, and there was an agreement on the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loans. 2) The judgment alone is based on the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3.