1. Defendant B’s KRW 130,000,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 7, 2014 to February 9, 2017.

Basic Facts

The pertinent Plaintiff, in relation to the parties, was operating the “E” of the building Nos. 312 through 316 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and Defendant B was the representative director and intra-company director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). The Plaintiff, who entered into a license agreement, was willing to carry out the temp business (hereinafter “instant business”) using the character of “G” animation for children’s play facilities by receiving a proposal from F, known to the general public, for children.

On July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff delegated F with the authority to select the location for the instant project, purchase buildings, purchase interior works, and business agreements with the Defendant Company, and entered into a license agreement with the Defendant Company (Representative Director B) on July 1, 2012.

The Defendant Company made a design for the play equipment to be installed in the E store. On August 1, 2012, the Defendant Company entered into a construction contract with the construction period from August 1, 2012 to September 31, 2012, with respect to the design planning, play equipment, and interior works, with the construction cost of KRW 250 million (excluding value-added tax).

On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 430 million to the account in the name of Defendant B, KRW 50 million on December 21, 2012, KRW 50 million on December 24, 2012, KRW 50 million on December 24, 2012, and KRW 30 million on January 25, 2013 to the account in the name of H Co., Ltd., and paid KRW 430 million in total.

Defendant B transferred each of the KRW 200 million on September 14, 2012, and KRW 100 million on December 24, 2012, to the account in the name of the Defendant Company.

[Grounds] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole, Defendant B lent 430 million won to the plaintiff through F.