1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,089,041 as well as 5% per annum from October 2, 2014 to April 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2013, C: (a) around 4, 2013, the actual operator of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) who carried out new construction on a plot of land, 400 million won, including expenses for registration of preservation of the building, expenses for completion inspection, acquisition tax, etc.; and (b) paid KRW 8 billion on the face of the building by proxy for registration of preservation of the building in question; and (c) received proposals from E to pay the principal amount of KRW 400 million by receiving construction expenses from the ordering person.

B. C requested the Plaintiff to lend money in order to raise the above cost of KRW 400 million, and the Plaintiff 2013

4. A loan of KRW 150 million to Sejong, and E, secured by its security, completed the registration of collateral security by changing the person entitled to registration of collateral security to the Plaintiff, etc., who is a person entitled to registration of collateral security established in the Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu, Dong-gu, and four lots of land.

C. On July 22, 2013, E paid KRW 348 million to C for the repayment of debt to the Plaintiff, etc., and C requested the Defendant to keep custody of KRW 348 million in total, including the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 150 million. Accordingly, the Defendant was transferred to the account in the name of G that the Defendant managed.

The Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s request for return, which became aware of the remittance, and did not return the said money to the Plaintiff. The Defendant arbitrarily used the Plaintiff’s money transferred to the account in G’s name as the repayment of the loan and other debt.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as embezzlement. On July 1, 2014, when the investigation of the instant case was under investigation, the Defendant returned KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the accusation against embezzlement.

F. The public prosecutor of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office in relation to the above embezzlement case is found to have embezzled the Plaintiff's money at his own discretion while keeping the Plaintiff's money, but considering the fact that the Defendant was the primary offender and the Plaintiff withdrawn the complaint.