1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. From December 1, 201 to September 30, 2013, the Defendant received monthly salary of KRW 3 million and KRW 1.5 million in total, and KRW 4.5 million in the legal office operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “monthly salary”); the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 26 million in addition to the monthly salary as indicated in the following table (hereinafter referred to as “instant money”), and there is no dispute between the parties; on the other hand, the Defendant received the sum of KRW 500,000 in cash from the Plaintiff, in addition to the money listed in the following table, as the sum of KRW 26 million in total, as indicated in the following table (hereinafter referred to as “instant amount”).

2012-02-01,00,00 cash 22012-07-16,000,000 3 2012-12-125,000,000 Internet banking 4 2013-04-25,000,000 5,000 5,000 2013-25,000,000 cash 6 2013-04-25,000,000 6 2013-05-313,000,000, 72013-25,07-25,000,00 Internet banking 3,000,003-253,000,000, 203-09,003-09,000, 2006,000

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s instant money is the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 24 million from Nos. 3 to 8 of the said Table, and damages for delay therefrom. (2) The Defendant’s instant money is the amount that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff as business activity expenses, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deduct the said money from the performance rate that the Plaintiff pays to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should deduct the above amount from the performance-based bonus to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff accounted for part of the instant money as the Defendant’s bonus.

B. Even based on the Defendant’s argument on the cause of the claim, the instant money is to be returned to the Plaintiff (However, according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s actual loan is only the amount to be returned by means of deduction from the Plaintiff’s performance bonus, regardless of its name).

Therefore, other special cases.