1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 as well as 30% per annum from March 29, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 29, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant 2.5% of the interest rate per month; and (b) KRW 40 million of the due date on March 2012; (c) paid KRW 39 million calculated by subtracting the interest rate of KRW 1 million from the one-month prior to the due date; and (d) on March 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million.

(1) The Defendant, at the time, drafted a promissory note in the face value of 40 million won to the Plaintiff.

B. Upon receipt of the request from C to lend KRW 40 million, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to lend money, and the Plaintiff requested the guarantee to pay the obligation.

Accordingly, on April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to C at 3% per month interest (the second loan), and the Defendant made an endorsement on the Promissory Notes (the issuer shall be deemed to have made an error on the date of payment on April 9, 2012) with the face value of KRW 20 million and the due date on April 9, 2012.

The plaintiff paid KRW 18.8 million, which is calculated by subtracting the interest of KRW 1.2 million from the interest of two months in advance. At the time, the defendant, who was owned by the defendant, for the purpose of debt security, held the plaintiff a certificate of registration of the right to the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Site and Ground

C. On April 12, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million to C, 3% of interest per month and due date on June 10, 2012.

(3) Section C drafted a promissory note dated June 10, 2012, the par value of which is KRW 20 million, and the due date, and the Defendant endorsed a promissory note to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff paid 19,400,000 won after deducting 60,000 won as one-month interest.

At the time, the defendant joined the number limit operated by the plaintiff and paid the deposit amount through E, but the plaintiff was forced to cancel the limit on December 2012, and the settlement procedure was reached.

As a result of the settlement, E was paid in KRW 14 million to the Defendant, and E paid the said money to the Plaintiff with the consent of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff appropriated the said money for the repayment of the obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and Eul evidence No. 1.