1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 24% per annum from February 6, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. The facts based on Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 [the defendant defense that Eul's director of the defendant company forged the above documents by misappropriation the seals of the defendant company Gap's company's director Gap's 3 (the defendant's statement of performance of obligations). Thus, in full view of the descriptions No. 1, 7, 9 (including additional numbers), Eul's evidence No. 4, and the whole purport of pleading in witness Eul's testimony, Eul invests its capital in the defendant company on August 17, 2012 and acquired 50% of the shares of Eul's representative director, and "C and E are jointly liable for management, and if the defendant company needs funds, E and Eul shall be appropriated by means of bonds, etc. after agreement between two shareholders and Eul" (hereinafter referred to as "agreement between shareholders").

A) The facts are as follows. C from this time, as a director of the defendant company, was in charge of raising funds and operating funds of the defendant company as the representative director of the defendant company; Eul was in charge of the defendant company's business; Eul was not directly involved in the management of the defendant company and was operated by the defendant company from August 2012 to February 2013 because it was not directly involved in the management of the defendant company; Eul was in charge of operating the defendant company under the responsibility of the defendant company under the responsibility of C (the contents of the defendant company's assertion E as the defendant company's manager and E; Eul was in custody of the defendant company's seal of the defendant company; it can be acknowledged that it was allowed for C to use the seal of the defendant company; according to this, C was delegated with the authority to use the seal of the defendant company in borrowing money in the name of the defendant company for raising funds of the defendant company. Accordingly, C is deemed to have been entrusted with the right of due authority by the defendant company, and thus the defendant's defense against this is rejected as a whole.