1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 87,500,000 and KRW 70,000,000, out of the above money, from October 25, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From October 2017, Defendant B loaned KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff, Defendant B asked the Plaintiff to lend money to repay KRW 140 million.

B. On October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff received loans, respectively, by setting the maturity period of KRW 80 million from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to 18% per annum on October 23, 2018 and at 18% per annum.

C. On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70 million out of the above loans to Defendant B on November 25, 2018. Defendant B agreed to repay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 140 million by adding the principal amount of KRW 70 million to the principal amount of KRW 70 million at the maturity date.

On the same day, the defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff a loan certificate of KRW 140 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the facts found earlier, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 70 million (=70 million x 25%) calculated at the rate of KRW 17.5 million per annum, calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from October 25, 2017 to October 24, 2018 under the Agreement Interest Rate and Interest Limitation Act, and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017) on the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Oct. 7, 2017) and the interest rate of KRW 7.5 million per annum from October 25, 2018 to interest rate of KRW 7.5 million and delay damages calculated with interest rate of KRW 25 million per annum.

B. As to this, Defendant B argues to the effect that the above KRW 70 million is not a loan, but an investment loan, and thus, Defendant B does not have any other counter-proof supporting facts, and thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in collusion with Defendant D, the chief of the law firm’s office.