1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay 600,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from June 14, 2016 to the date of full payment.

On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 600 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) (hereinafter “instant loan”).

On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted a loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) with the following content as follows.

It is the rejection of D's loan certificate D.

You confirm that the above amount was borrowed from you in part of 23 November 201, 201, the sum of the interest specified by the end of July 2012 shall be repaid.

If shares are purchased on credit from a securities company traded with a thickness even before the redemption date, I will bear the interest to be borne by the securities company with a thickness.

The husband of defendant C, the joint and several surety of the debtor, is the husband of defendant C, the representative director of defendant C.

【In light of the above-mentioned facts in light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the cause of claim as to the claim against defendant B, the plaintiff was lent KRW 600 million to defendant B without fixing a deadline. Thus, the defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, which is the time when the plaintiff was demanded to discharge the loan of this case borrowed from the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, Defendant B, after borrowing KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff, ordered the Plaintiff’s spouse to prepare the loan certificate of this case at the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff could no longer claim the loan of this case against Defendant B.

However, only in writing the instant loan certificate, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim against Defendant B to D.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the issuance of the loan certificate of this case, the relationship between the Plaintiff and D, the relationship between the Defendant B representative director and the Defendant C, etc., there is no evidence to deem that the loan certificate of this case was or waived.