1. Defendant A’s KRW 191,50,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2013 to December 24, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant A operated a restaurant under the name of “C” on a lease of part of the facilities owned by the Plaintiff. On February 7, 2012, Defendant A prepared a promissory note notarial deed to the effect that, by December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff would pay KRW 191,50,000,000, which is the approximate sum of the rent, electricity, water supply, etc., and damages for delayed payment, to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2012.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that was established on February 25, 2009 and operates a restaurant under the name of “D”.

At the time of the establishment of the defendant corporation, the representative director of the defendant corporation was the defendant A and his son, and the defendant A resigned on May 24, 2012 and the F, who was the wife, was appointed on his her post, and only E is currently in office as the representative director.

C. Defendant A, along with the establishment of the company, owned 500 shares of Defendant A, E 400 shares, and F owned 100 shares. Defendant A, on May 30, 2012, donated all of the shares held to F, thereby F is currently holding 600 shares, and E holds 400 shares.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 5-1 through 7-5, the fact inquiry inquiry report conducted on June 18, 2015 by the Superintendent of the Central Tax Office, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant A, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 191,50,000 under the notarial deed of promissory notes, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from January 1, 2013 to December 24, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from January 1, 2013 to December 24, 2014, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

3. The Plaintiff, in fact, operates the “C” and “D” on its own account by Defendant A, and the Defendant Company independently operated the “D”. Therefore, the Defendant Company is running the “C” while managing the Defendant Company.