1. Defendant B’s KRW 130,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 25, 2014 to January 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B: (a) from March 12, 2013, the following:

On March 13, 2013 to March 12, 2014, the building mentioned in the port was leased KRW 40 million, and the term of lease was fixed from March 13, 2013 to KRW 40 million.

B. On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded a contract with the following terms (hereinafter “instant contract”).

1. The Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to lease a 182.55 square meters (a approximately 55 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”) of the underground floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul E-gu, Seoul to operate the building as “F”, and the lease contract for this purpose is under the name of Defendant B.

2. Defendant B does not have ownership and no rights for 40 million won and for 90 million won premium for building lease; and

3. In the event that the business referred to in paragraph (1) is either disposed of or is unable to maintain the business due to the business and other reasons, Defendant B agrees to pay the Plaintiff the rental deposit and premium (total KRW 130 million) for the building.

However, premium of KRW 90 million may be changed according to the settlement of circumstances.

On March 13, 2013, Defendant B prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that “Defendant B shall regularly borrow KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff on March 13, 2013.”

Defendant B did not run the main business in the instant building from September 2013, and around January 2014, Defendant B did not run the main business.

The lease contract mentioned in subsection (a) was terminated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 150 million to the Defendants to run the main business in the instant building. Of these, the Plaintiff thought that the main operating expenses of KRW 20 million was not returned from the Defendants if the main operating expenses were not well-grounded. However, even if the main operating expenses of KRW 130 million were not well-grounded, the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with the Defendants with a view to returning the main operating expenses.