1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as its annual 30% from September 26, 2010 to July 14, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 regarding the cause of the claim, when the plaintiff invests 20 million won to the defendant on March 25, 2010, the amount of investment principal of KRW 20 million and KRW 20 million shall be refunded until September 25, 2010. However, where the return of the above investment principal and the amount of investment profit is delayed, the investment agreement was entered into with the purport of returning the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 3% per month (hereinafter "the investment agreement of this case"). Under the investment agreement of this case, the plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the defendant on March 25, 2010, the defendant issued a promissorysory note to secure the return of the investment principal and the amount of investment interest of the plaintiff, and the fact that the defendant issued the promissory note to the plaintiff on March 25, 201 and issued the amount of KRW 40 million to the plaintiff on March 25, 2010.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won in total of the investment principal and the investment income, and as requested by the plaintiff within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act, 30% per annum from September 26, 2010 to July 14, 2014 and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant’s summary of the defense on the ground of the claim for reimbursement (1) is deemed to be the land of this case, which was owned by the Plaintiff on November 18, 2010, as collateral for the investment principal and the obligation to return investment earnings under the instant investment agreement, and KRW 3,083 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, given that the Plaintiff transferred the right to collateral security to another person, and thereafter, at an auction procedure following the exercise of the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff received all claims under the investment agreement of this case. (2) In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s claim is with respect to the instant land in addition to the written evidence Nos. 1, 3, 1, and 2.