1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 47,801,341 out of KRW 76,609,104 and the above amount from March 15, 2007 to the day of full payment.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Facts 1) On April 23, 2007, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank applied for a payment order against the Defendant on the same amount as the written order in Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea 40469, and as a result, the Defendant’s objection and performance as a lawsuit, the above court sentenced on September 18, 2007 that on September 18, 2007, the Defendant shall pay the same amount as the written order to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant judgment”). This judgment became final and conclusive on October 19, 207 (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

(2) On April 26, 201, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank re-transfer the said amount to the Plaintiff, and at that time, notified the Defendant of such fact.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the same amount as the written order.

2. Determination as to the defendant's claim for completion of the extinctive prescription

A. The claim of this case as to the purport of the assertion was extinguished by the prescription period, even though five years have passed, which is the period of prescription for commercial claims.

B. The starting point of the extinctive prescription of the transfer money claimed by the Plaintiff is October 19, 2007 when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, and it is reasonable to regard the period of extinctive prescription as 10 years, as well as the period of extinctive prescription, as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion and the remainder are not admitted without examining

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.