1. The Defendant’s KRW 45 million and its relation to the Plaintiff is 5% per annum from January 1, 2009 to November 26, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2008, the Plaintiff invested KRW 50 million in F, a similar receiver operated by D and E, upon investment recommendation from the Defendant and C.

B. On September 29, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate to the effect that “In attracting investment of KRW 50 million from the Defendant and C as F Group, the Plaintiff shall be held liable for the amount of principal only until September 29, 2008 to December 2008” (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”).

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the profits immediately after the said investment.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) If the Defendant invested KRW 50 million in F, he could receive the Plaintiff’s cash custody certificate of this case to the effect that, until December 2008, the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment capable of recovering the principal, and that he will be responsible for and guaranteed the principal. However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 5 million from the above company’s profit, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the principal amount to the Plaintiff. 2) Defendant prepared the cash custody certificate of this case to the effect that the Defendant is liable for the remainder of the principal amount to the Plaintiff by December 2008. 2) Defendant prepared the cash custody certificate of this case to the effect that the Defendant is liable for the investment amount only until December 2008.

B. According to the above facts of determination, it is recognized that the following facts are stated in the cash custody certificate of this case that "it shall be liable for principal only until December 2008."

However, in addition to the above facts and the purport of Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff made an investment in F with the defendant's active solicitation, and in light of such investment circumstances, the defendant shall have invested principal in the plaintiff.