1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 450,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3:

1) The Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment at the Changwon District Court on February 17, 2016, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, etc. (Seoul District Court 2013 Gowon District Court 2013 Gowon District Court 2372, 2014 Godan2600, 2015 Godan1486 (Joint))) for the following criminal facts, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 20, 2016 (hereinafter the above judgment referred to as the “final judgment related to the instant case”).

(C) The Defendant is a corporation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

(2) On September 14, 2007, when the representative director is engaged in the business of leasing and selling real estate, D buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) are called “D buildings”.

The completion was completed.

Although the Defendant completed the instant building, the sales in lots did not take place, and the site of the instant building was offered as security to the E and F Mutual Savings Banks, with a total of KRW 2,700,000,000 loans to the E and F Mutual Savings Banks, loans to the neighboring investors, and loans to the neighboring investors, and a large amount of loans to the G Co., Ltd. which constructed the said commercial building, such as the obligation to pay the construction cost of KRW 3,300,000,000, and the demand for reimbursement was received.

Accordingly, around September 2007, the Defendant asked the GJ of the regular manager of the IF of the IF of the instant building, which was known to the ordinary manager of the IF of the G in Kimhae-si, to grant a loan secured by the commercial building of this case, but from J, the Defendant and C have a loan limit to the loan of the instant building of this case, the Defendant and C have the same loan limit to the loan, and hearing the speech that the loan is difficult for the unsold commercial buildings after the completion of the construction of the commercial building, and in fact, the Defendant was able to prepare a false sales contract as if the commercial buildings were sold to the buyers although the above commercial buildings were not actually sold, and the commercial transactions were active,

In September 2007, the defendant heard from J around September 2007 the words "380,000,000 won" and worked as C auditor.