1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant B, which constitutes the following amount of payment:

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 21, 2011, Defendant B drafted a document stating that “Defendant B shall provide the Plaintiff with a 10% equity share of KRW 10 million and return KRW 13 million in total with equity and investment funds after three months (hereinafter “the document of this case”).” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the document of this case”).

B. Around June 20, 2011, Defendant B drafted a cash custody certificate stating that “Defendant B borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff to take over the Gyeong Myeong-gu shop on June 20, 201, including the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant written document, and that Defendant B would repay the above borrowed money by July 19, 201 (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 3-1 and Gap 10-10, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 20 million and delay damages therefrom, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the cash custody certificate of this case was prepared by the Plaintiff’s coercion, and that it constitutes a non-jin’s expression of intent, and thus, is null and void. Defendant B’s actual loan was made in violation of the Interest Limitation Act. Although Defendant B asserted that the amount actually borrowed is KRW 10 million, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit. Defendant B’s assertion that the payment of KRW 5 million was made on November 5, 2010, KRW 5 million on November 15, 2010, and KRW 5 million on April 27, 201. Thus, even according to Defendant B’s assertion, each of the above payments was made before the cash custody certificate of this case was prepared. Thus, it is difficult to view it as the deadline for the payment of the debt.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, is commercial.