1. The defendant shall pay 83,978,580 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from November 4, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 5 above, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 90,000,000 to the account of the Plaintiff, the representative director of the Defendant Company, on October 26, 2012; the aforementioned Category C remitted KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff’s account on December 6, 2012; the Defendant Company was subject to a rehabilitation decision by the Daegu District Court on September 9, 2013, but the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on January 13, 2014; the rehabilitation procedure was abolished; the rehabilitation procedure was completed; the rehabilitation list prepared by the Defendant Company prior to the closure of the rehabilitation procedure; the amount of KRW 80,00,000,00 to the Plaintiff’s account from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff’s account on May 14, 2014; and the fact that the amount of wages paid by the Defendant Company as of May 28, 2014>

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is a person who received retirement allowance of KRW 7,00,000 from the Defendant, out of the above KRW 20,978,580.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff remitted 90,000,000 won to the account of the Defendant Company, the representative director of the Defendant Company, and lent the said money to the Defendant Company on October 26, 2012. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by applying the annual rate of 20,000,000 won (=90,000,000 - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000) including unpaid wages, and 13,978,580,580 won including unpaid wages (=20,978,580 - 7,000,000) to the Defendant at the request of the Plaintiff as to the payment order of this case from November 4, 2014 to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant asserts that there is no direct loan of money from the plaintiff. However, as seen earlier, the defendant did not pay a debt to the defendant company in the rehabilitation procedure for the defendant company, from the account in the name of C, which is the representative director of the defendant company and the defendant company.