1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the absence of dispute between the parties to the facts or the fact-finding results of Gap's evidence 1 to Gap's evidence 4 and the fact-finding results of the new bank of the original court.

1) On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan to the International Medical Center, Inc., Ltd., the International Medical Center (hereinafter “International Medical Center”).

(2) On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 677,820,292 at a rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2014 to the date of full payment (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Hu1715, Oct. 28, 2014). The payment order was finalized on November 15, 2014. (2) The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 677,820,292 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from January 1, 2014 to the date of full payment (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Da1715, Oct. 28, 2014).

(A) On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (Evidence A 2; hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”) with the following terms and conditions as follows (i.e., the instant contract for the supply of goods; and (ii) the claim of the said medical clinic for the payment of the instant goods.

(1) (1) Until October 31, 2012, the International Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as “instant equipment”) provides the Defendant with solar light-lighting equipment (hereinafter referred to as “instant equipment”).

(2) The Defendant supplied the instant equipment to the Defendant on or before December 2012, 2012, the remainder of KRW 180 million after the expiration of the warranty period (one year from the date of completion of the inspection), and the remainder of KRW 180 million, respectively, after the expiration of the warranty period (one year from the date of completion of the inspection). (2) The Defendant supplied the instant equipment to the Defendant on or after the expiration of the warranty period.

(1) The Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Defendant on December 2, 2012 on the date of issuance of the instant equipment at the clinic. The Defendant is a person who did not pay the price of the instant goods to the clinic.

3) The plaintiff is entitled to a collection order issued by the plaintiff.