1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall complete payment to the Plaintiff of KRW 4,750,000 and its payment from May 8, 2014.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 5, and 6, and Eul evidence 2 and the purport of all pleadings:

On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,00,000 from the post office account (Account Number: D) in the name of the Defendant’s mother to the new bank account (Account Number: E; hereinafter “Defendant’s name account”) in the name of the Defendant, and KRW 3,750,000 from the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number:F) in the name of the Defendant’s name to the account in the name of the Defendant.

(hereinafter “each transfer of this case”). (b)

On September 24, 2013, the Defendant received the above money from the Plaintiff on the same day, and appears to be “J” according to the statement in G B’s No. 2. However, the Defendant refers to G in the written objection, etc. against the instant payment order, and there is no dispute among the Plaintiff.

1,00,000 won was transferred to the bank account in the name of the bank, and 3,750,000 won was transferred to the bank account in the name of H.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, which is KRW 4,750,000,000, to the Defendant, who is a bond company, as the Plaintiff’s successor, upon I’s request, and KRW 5,00,000,000, which is the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s mother, transferred from the bank account in the name of C to the account in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant two times. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of KRW 4,750,00,000, excluding the advance interest portion among the loans, and KRW 250,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant introduced H to the Plaintiff through I on September 23, 2013, since the Plaintiff’s relative job offers had surplus funds, upon the Plaintiff’s request to introduce a person in need of the loan to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant introduced H to the Plaintiff through I on its own.