1. As to KRW 142,934,052 and KRW 90,876,661 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall annually pay to the Plaintiff KRW 142,934,052 from September 12, 2018 to October 26, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the amount of KRW 100,000,000 as development technology commercialization fund to the Defendant at 4.34% per annum; and (b) lent the amount at 12% per annum for overdue interest.

(hereinafter “instant loan”) b.

From October 25, 2013, the Defendant delayed payment of KRW 7,225,312 of the principal and interest of the instant lending from around October 25, 2013, and accordingly, the instant lending agreement lost the benefit of time pursuant to Article 6 of the Framework Terms and Conditions on April 1, 2014.

C. The principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 89,404,670 as of September 12, 2018, the sum of the principal and interest of KRW 1,471,91, interest interest of KRW 52,057,391, interest of KRW 142,934,052.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 1,471,91 with interest of KRW 89,404,670 and interest of KRW 1,471,057,391 with interest of KRW 52,00 and KRW 90,876,61 (=interest of KRW 89,404,670 with interest of KRW 1,471,91) from September 12, 2018 to October 26, 2018, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15 per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant discontinued his business in around 2014, and C, the representative director of the Seoul Rehabilitation Court, filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2014da4933, and repaid the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff according to the draft repayment plan. 2) However, the exemption does not affect the obligor’s right against the obligor’s guarantor and other persons who bear the obligation jointly with the obligor, and the security provided for individual rehabilitation creditors (Article 625(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the Plaintiff’s claim in this case against the Defendant as a juristic person, even if the Defendant’s representative director is the obligor.