1. The defendant shall pay 250,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Basic Facts

On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 400 million to C on December 18, 2012. As a security, the Plaintiff was set up a collateral of KRW 150 million with respect to Article 111-dong 1503, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

In addition to the above collateral at the time of the above loan, the Plaintiff received a certificate of loan (Evidence B 1) issued by the Defendant, stating that “The Defendant guaranteed the payment of the C’s loan obligation and promised to refund (lease Deposit) to the Plaintiff at the time of the expiration of the lease” with the resident number and address as the resident number and address.

The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 100 million from C on March 19, 2013, KRW 100 million on March 2013, KRW 70 million on March 21, 2013, and KRW 215 million on May 21, 2013.

On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the representative director C of the Plaintiff Company E to pay investment profits of KRW 15 billion each month, and invested KRW 5 billion on April 24, 2013 by depositing the amount of KRW 5 billion on April 24, 2013 in the account of E Co., Ltd. as collateral. The Plaintiff was provided with KRW 377,232 shares of E.

When the Plaintiff was unable to receive the return on investment from the said company, it sold all the shares specified in the foregoing paragraph (1) as collateral on March 11, 2014, and recovered KRW 334,877,013, and was paid KRW 100 million from E on February 14, 2014, and KRW 100 million on February 19, 2014. The Defendant, on July 11, 201, entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to lease KRW 250,00,000,000,000 from July 25, 2011 to July 24, 2013. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, with respect to the above deposit, to lease KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from the foregoing deposit:

2) 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition.’