1. The defendant shall pay 190,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 30, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, etc., on June 2007, recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment in gift certificates, stating the business prospects of Plus as one stock company and receiving a new investment of KRW 2 billion. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff purchases flus gift certificates as one of the Plaintiff, it would pay the principal and investment profits.

나. 원고는 이를 받아들여 2007. 6. 20.까지 피고 등에게 합계 190,000,000원을 지급하고 하나로 플러스 상품권을 샀다.

C. The Defendant et al. was indicted by the Defendant et al. on the charge of fraud that “The Defendant et al., in the state of de facto suspension of new investments after the suspension of the redemption of gift certificates, even if they received new investments, they would only be appropriated for the redemption of investments made by existing members, and there was no intention or ability to repay investment funds to new investors. Nevertheless, the Defendant et al., who acquired KRW 190,000 from the Plaintiff on the ground of false remarks as referred to in the above A-mentioned provision, was indicted as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201

On January 24, 2013, the above court sentenced the Defendant to a total of ten months of imprisonment with prison labor, and both the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul Central District Court 2013No669) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2013Do7086) were dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 14, 2013.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 190,000,000 won with the agreed amount and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 30, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, from January 30, 2015 to the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant paid KRW 33,00,000 to the plaintiff, the above money should be deducted from the agreed amount.

However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the defendant is an investor.