1. The Defendant’s 150,000 US dollars and 6% per annum from August 23, 2014 to December 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a letter of intent (a certificate No. 1; hereinafter “instant letter of intent”) was drawn up between the Plaintiff and the Defendant stating the content of leasing one aircraft unit (hereinafter “instant aircraft”) No. 737-80, 35213, a manufacturing number produced by the Plaintiff from the Defendant, which was 35213.

B. If some of the contents indicated in the instant letter of intent are extracted, it is as follows.

o The scheduled date of delivery: June 21, 2014, and if the delivery of an aircraft is not made within 30 days from the scheduled date of delivery, the plaintiff will terminate the agreement to lease the aircraft to the defendant through written notice.

o Lease Term: 60 months from the date of delivery under the conditions of choice for extension of 24 months: US$213,145 each month from the date of delivery.

o The lessee deposits USD 75,00 at the lessor’s bank account, USD 75,00 at the time of the completion of the inspection, USD 75,00 at the time of the completion of the inspection, and USD 489,435 at the time of the final inspection and authorization by the aeronautical authorities of the Republic of Korea for commercial operations. If the Plaintiff terminates this agreement in accordance with the provision on the aircraft and delivery date, or if other relevant documents than the lease agreement are not signed on the date of signature, the Defendant will return the said money after deducting the expenses which the Plaintiff could have accepted within 30 days.

o Applicable Law: English Law

C. The Plaintiff’s explanation to the Defendant as of March 25, 2014

5.8. Each of USD 75,000, total of USD 150,000 deposited into the Defendant’s bank account.

However, the defendant did not deliver the aircraft at the expiration of 30 days from June 21, 2014, which was the scheduled delivery date of the aircraft.

On July 23, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant an e-mail claiming the return of USD 150,000 that was already paid to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;