1. Defendant B’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 26, 2013 to April 9, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 25, 2013, upon introduction by a branch, the Plaintiff invested money from Defendant B, who is engaged in futures option investment business with D, the Plaintiff’s husband, as well as F 30 G located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, in futures option investment business, with the Plaintiff’s husband, to the futures option, 30% of the investment amount is calculated as an option transaction and the principal would be returned after three months.

B. The Plaintiff’s investment funds in the above futures option amounting to KRW 10,000,000 on January 31, 2013, and the same year

4. Gold 10,000,000 won, and the same year;

2. 14. Gold 30,000,000 won in total and same year in the account under Defendant C’s name, the wife of Defendant B.

3. Each remittance of 20.20,000 won from Defendant B for the same year.

2.1. From January to the same year;

4. A total of KRW 20,320,000 has been paid up to 25. Then, the proceeds as well as the principal have not been returned.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-6, Gap evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) According to the facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B (1) as to the obligation to return the investment amount, Defendant B did not perform the obligation to pay the proceeds and return the principal that was promised to the Plaintiff under the above investment agreement, and thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 (the Plaintiff claimed 50,000,000,000 won out of the total investment amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 from April 26, 2013 to April 9, 2014, which is the date following the final date of payment of the final revenue, to the above Defendant, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 26, 2013 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case against the said Defendant, and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act

The Plaintiff sought damages for delay at the statutory rate from the day following the date of final investment payment to the above Defendant.