1. The Defendant’s KRW 120,000,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 25% per annum from May 19, 2015 to March 15, 2017.

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there is no counter-proof.

On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a share investment contract with Nonparty C and remitted KRW 200 million to the national bank account designated by it.

C After that, C re-investment in the amount of KRW 40 million that should be paid to the Plaintiff as profit, and created a certificate of equity investment with the total amount of KRW 240 million that should be paid as profit.

B. The Plaintiff demanded C to return the investment amount. On February 16, 2015, the Defendant sought the Plaintiff and paid the money in lieu of C, and the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

The contents are as follows:

The loan certificate No. 220,000,000 won (220,000 won) will be deposited in the creditor’s account by February 17, 2015 from February 16, 2015 (10,000,000 won) with the above amount regularly borrowed from the creditor’s account until February 17, 2015, and shall deposit the daily loan No. 120,000,000 won (120,000,000 won) with the creditor’s account by May 18, 2015.

If the repayment is not completed by the second repayment date, I will pay interest in arrears at 2.5% per month for the amount in arrears.

The interest payment date shall be deposited before the end of each month.

Defendant Creditor who borrowed the Plaintiff

C. After preparing the instant loan certificate with the Defendant, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 100,000,000 from the Defendant on February 17, 2015.

2. The court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the contents of the statement, so long as the judgment on the cause of claim is recognized to be authentic, and there is any difference between the parties on the interpretation of the contract.