1. The Defendant’s KRW 41 million and the Plaintiff’s 24% per annum from February 6, 2016 to May 11, 2016, and the following.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (which does not expressly indicate the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff loaned the above money to the Defendant Company by entering into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff setting the maturity period of KRW 50 million on August 18, 2014 and the interest rate of KRW 2% on August 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

On the other hand, among the above loans, the payment of the principal amount of KRW 9 million and the payment of interest until February 5, 2016 is made by the plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of KRW 41 million out of the loan and the interest thereon from February 6, 2016 to May 11, 2016, which is the date following the last day of the payment of interest, to the agreement rate of KRW 24% per annum, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, as sought by the Plaintiff from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant Company

A. After the conclusion of the monetary loan agreement between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, on the same day, the agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company (the representative director of the Defendant Company) to repay the above loan debt by borrowing the loan from the Defendant Company, not the Defendant Company, and accordingly, the monetary loan agreement of this case was revoked or reversed. Thus, the Defendant, not the Defendant Company, but the Defendant Company, was an individual.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Company is illegal against a person who is not qualified as the Defendant, and the Defendant Company did not have a duty to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. In a lawsuit for the performance of the determination on the principal safety defense as to the eligibility of the defendant 1, the person alleged by the plaintiff as the person responsible for performance shall be the defendant.