1. The defendant shall pay 121,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 30, 201 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. From June 12, 2007 to February 25, 2009, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 181 million to the Defendant without setting interest and the due date for payment (the Plaintiff is a stock company established by the Defendant at the Defendant’s request (hereinafter “instant company”).

on June 12, 2007, 5 million won on June 12, 2007, as the account of D, the representative director of the D,

7. Oct. 3, 2000 won; E’s account, which is an employee of the instant company, is KRW 25 million on Dec. 17, 2007; and KRW 25 million on Mar. 11, 2008; and

4. 30.10 million won, and the same year.

5.13.10 million won, and the same year.

5. 27. 40 million won, per year.

7.4.20 million won, and the same year;

9. 24. 30 million won, January 24, 2009 10 million won, and the same year;

2. 25. 3 million won was remitted respectively.

【The Defendant’s KRW 60 million among the Plaintiff (the KRW 40 million on June 2, 2008), and the same year

8.8.20 million won is not in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the numbers of paper numbers or 6), and Eul evidence No. 1 is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 121 million after deducting the above KRW 60 million, which the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not lend the above KRW 181 million to the defendant, but remitted to the company of this case by the defendant's recommendation, and as a result, when the business of this case is stable, the defendant agreed to obtain a character business license from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. The Defendant’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge only with the written evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the above fact of recognition and the instant case.