1. The defendant's decision to replace the conciliation of the case No. 2018 money6804 against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court's decision.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 5, 2010 to August 23, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant on several occasions as indicated in the credit information sheet for appropriation for attached files. From April 6, 2010 to April 6, 2010, the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest on several occasions, as indicated in the information on appropriation for appropriation for attached files.

On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of loan agreement (hereinafter “the letter of loan agreement”) with the Defendant with a loan amount of KRW 15,000,000.

B. On October 16, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 15,00,000 of the loan and damages for delay (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da87433) on the ground that the loan was not repaid against the Plaintiff under the instant loan agreement.

C. On June 22, 2018, the above lawsuit was brought before the conciliation (Seoul Central District Court 2018ss. 2004) and the above court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation (hereinafter “the instant decision”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 15,00,000,000 to November 30, 2019, which shall be paid in 15 installments each month from September 2018 to November 2019. If the payment in installments is delayed once, the Plaintiff shall lose the benefit of time, and the payment in full shall be paid by adding the delay damages calculated at a rate of 15% per annum from the following day of the payment in installments to the date of the full payment in full. The Defendant waives the remainder of the claim against the Plaintiff.”

On August 6, 2018, the Plaintiff received each of the instant decisions on June 27, 2018, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not file an objection within two weeks, and the instant decision became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted from February 5, 2010, borrowed money on several occasions from the Defendant, a bondholder, and repaid money on several occasions. The Plaintiff’s repayment is the Plaintiff.