1. The Defendant’s KRW 19.1 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from April 1, 2015 to August 27, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2014, C subscribed to the winning bid of KRW 100 million for the Defendant’s accounts, and requested the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 50 million while accepting the said accounts.

Upon C’s request, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a certificate of deposit of 50 million won, stating that “C is entering a 100 million foot book and at the time of winning the contract, to transfer it to DC”.

On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of the above custody certificate from the Defendant, sent 48.5 million won after deducting 1.5 million won from the pre-paid interest to the Defendant.

B. Meanwhile, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,91 million in total to the account designated by the Defendant, as of March 31, 2015, on January 21, 2015, and KRW 1,9.1 million in total, as of January 21, 2015, and KRW 9.1 million in total, to the account designated by the Defendant.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the event that C was awarded a successful bid at the time of lending KRW 50 million to C, the Defendant: (a) agreed to pay KRW 50 million out of the total amount of KRW 100 million to C in lieu of the above loan; and (b) paid directly to the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant violated this and paid 100 million won to C around November 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50 million won based on the above custody certificate and 19.1 million won separately borrowed from the plaintiff and delay damages.

B. As to the Defendant’s payment of KRW 100 million to C around November 2014, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness F as seen above was merely a rumor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, according to the witness F's testimony, it is recognized that the 100 million won successful bid system operated by the defendant was sold because the members failed to pay the accumulated money properly.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is correct.