1. Defendant B’s KRW 96 million and its relation to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 1, 2011 to November 13, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 201, the Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with Defendant B on June 201, upon cancelling the registration of provisional attachment disposal of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant B, the Plaintiff would be granted a loan of KRW 2.5 billion from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank. The agreement with creditors has been concluded, and among creditors, E was also delegated by the obligee. The Plaintiff received a proposal from the said bank that “The Plaintiff would obtain a loan from the said bank and pay double the investment principal as investment profits after cancelling provisional attachment registration, etc. at the expense of cancelling provisional attachment registration.”

B. According to the above investment contract, Defendant B and E receive the amount of KRW 90 million invested by the Plaintiff, and the amount of the investment is used as expenses to terminate provisional attachment, provisional disposition, etc. established on the instant building, and the contract period was the date of loan payment by Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (However, even if the loan problem occurred, it is deemed that it does not take place on June 30, 201), and the investment profit was paid KRW 180 million on the above date and the principal amount of KRW 90 million are repaid on the above date, and if the acquisition of the said building or the cancellation of the loan occurs due to inevitable circumstances, the Plaintiff shall immediately return the investment principal to the Plaintiff.

C. On June 20, 201, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 96 million to the Defendant B by remitting KRW 60 million to the National Bank Account in Defendant C’s name (hereinafter “instant account”) designated by Defendant B, with KRW 17 million on June 23, 2011, KRW 17 million on June 23, 2011, and KRW 96 million on June 24, 2011.

Defendant B did not actually delegate the authority to carry out the above investment contract from E, and instead used the money received from the Plaintiff as the cost of provisional attachment or provisional attachment or cancellation of provisional attachment for the instant building, and consumed the money as the cost of living or entertainment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap.