1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from July 14, 2015 to March 13, 2016.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “A”) and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “B”) enter into a monetary loan agreement as follows.

Article 1 [Leases] A shall lend 20,000,000 won to B on 14 July 2015 and shall borrow this.

II.[Date of Repayment] After normalization of Non-Performing Repayment Place D, 20,000 - The due date for online remittance loans shall be as follows:

[Interest]

1. Interest on any loan shall be the statutory interest rate, and shall be paid together with the principal and interest at the time of repayment;

2. Overdue interest when the repayment of principal and interest has been delayed, the statutory interest rate shall be the interest rate.

Article 5 [Loss of Benefit of Time] (Loss of Benefit of Time) Where Eul delays the performance of any one of the repayment dates under Article 2, and where Eul is in default at a clearing house, or where Eul has made an application for provisional attachment, seizure, auction, commencement of composition or commencement of reorganization proceedings to Eul, or entered into liquidation, when it is objectively apparent that Eul's obligation to Eul to Eul is impossible to repay within the due date, or any of the other obligations under this Agreement has been defaulted, and all obligations to Eul shall lose the benefit of time.

1) On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant to lend KRW 20 million to the Defendant on the same day, and remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant on the same day. The main contents are as follows. (ii) At the Defendant’s factory, there is no framework for manufacturing products, and thus, it is impossible to manufacture products. The Defendant is in a de facto suspension or discontinuance of business.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, Gap evidence 3, and the purport of whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is objectively impossible to repay the loan to the plaintiff within the due date as it is impossible to normalize its operation.