1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 430,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 14, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The pertinent Plaintiff was introduced by the Defendant, who was the senior employee of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, operating a bond retail store with the trade name of “D” in Jongno-gu, and was placed in the middle of the pertinent business by F, the business partner who was a party to the instant transaction, which was an overwork retail store in the trade name of “E.”

B. The Plaintiff’s remittance and issuance of the Defendant’s loan certificate 1) The Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant from July 13, 2013 to March 27, 2014, totaling KRW 416,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) over 26 occasions, as indicated in the attached deposit sheet, as shown in the attached deposit sheet.

(2) From July 13, 2013 to December 4, 2013, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing, stating the loan amount, maturity, interest, etc. as indicated in the column of “non-deposit” in the attached table, to the Plaintiff from July 13, 2013 to December 4, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff’s criminal complaint against the Defendant was filed on August 7, 2015 with the charge of fraud that “The Defendant and F, a private village, conspired with the Plaintiff to pay the principal to the Plaintiff within one year with the interest of two copies of interest without the intention of repayment or ability, and received a total of KRW 416,00,000,000 from the Plaintiff. The Defendant, around December 2013, by deceiving the Plaintiff that he would substitute for F’s debt 14,000,000 won with respect to the Plaintiff, and acquired F’s interest equivalent to the above debt amount to F,” and the Defendant and F filed a complaint against the Defendant and F. On August 7, 2015. The Prosecutor decided not to prosecute the instant money against the Defendant, and the Seoul High Court decided not to prosecute the prosecution with respect to F’s failure to prosecute the Defendant for reasons related to F’s debt acceptance, but decided not to prosecute the prosecution with respect to the Defendant’s failure to prosecute 2015.74.