1. As to KRW 48,00,000 and KRW 30,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from December 13, 2013 to February 15, 2016.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

On January 7, 2013, the Defendant made and issued to the Plaintiff a cash custody certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on December 13, 2012 (hereinafter “the first loan”). By December 12, 2013, the Defendant repaid the loan by December 13, 2013, and pays KRW 1.2 million (4% per month) as of December 13, 2013.”

B. On August 27, 2013, the Defendant: “Around May 21, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff, KRW 5 million on June 7, 2013, KRW 18 million on June 20, 2013, and KRW 18 million on June 20, 2013 (hereinafter “second loan”); and (b) drafted and issued a cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff, stating that “The Defendant repaid KRW 8 million on September 30, 2013, KRW 10 million on October 20, 2013.”

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant, the lender, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the lender, the total amount of KRW 48 million, and to the Plaintiff, as claimed by the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 30 million from December 13, 2013 to February 15, 2016, the agreed rate of KRW 30% per annum, which is within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act, and KRW 18 million from October 21, 2013 to February 15, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from February 15, 2016 to February 15, 2016, the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case, and KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the borrowed money of this case, but the remainder is the amount that the Plaintiff lent to a third party upon the Defendant’s introduction. Accordingly, the Defendant decided to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed money directly to the third party.