1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 44,710,000,000 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff as indicated in the following table.

Serial temporary amount 1.20,00,000 won on May 16, 2007 20,000 won on May 18, 2007 3.60,000,000 won on June 7, 2007 40,000,000 won on July 16, 2007 5. 50,000,000 won on March 20, 2008 60,000 won on August 30, 2007 220,000,000 won on August 30, 2007

B. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 275,290,000 to the Defendant on October 7, 2009 through July 8, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. Contents 1) The plaintiff introduced the defendant to the employee of a securities company who was engaged in the transaction on August 30, 2007, and the defendant incurred losses after investing 100,000,000 won in shares at his own decision. The amount borrowed from the defendant was a total of 220,000,000 won as stated in the above table, and the plaintiff paid 275,290,000 won as the plaintiff paid 275,290,000 won, the over 55,290,000 won should be returned to the defendant on August 30, 2007.

4,710,00 won (=320,000,000 - 275,290,000 won) calculated by deducting 275,290,000 won paid by the Plaintiff out of the above amount (i.e., KRW 320,000).

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared a letter of payment stating that "the plaintiff guaranteed the liability of 320,000,000 won received from the defendant, and paid interest for two years," in early 2009, and that it delivered it to the defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that the preparation of the above payment note is null and void by an unfair legal act conducted by taking advantage of the plaintiff's old condition, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the descriptions of Gap 3 and 4 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000, which was the Plaintiff on August 30, 2007, as the loan amount.