1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as annual 5% from November 2, 2014 to June 9, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from November 2, 2014 to June 9, 2016, when it is evident that the above loan amount is KRW 300 million and its delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from November 2, 2014 to June 9, 2016, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s defense: (a) paid to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million on October 27, 2014; (b) KRW 15 million on January 28, 2015; (c) KRW 15 million on February 26, 2015; (d) KRW 15 million on March 9, 2015; and (e) KRW 10 million on May 8, 2015; and (e) paid the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on May 26, 2015; (c) however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s defense was without merit.

[Evidence] The parties shall appear on the date for pleading or the date for preparatory pleading and submit it in reality, and the same applies to cases where it is deemed that the complaint attached with documentary evidence is to have been stated (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775, Nov. 8, 1991). While the Defendant submitted a written answer attached with documentary evidence on August 17, 2016, it shall be deemed that the above written answer submitted by the Defendant was stated as evidence, since the Defendant did not appear on the date for the second pleading opened on September 8, 2016 and the third pleading opened on October 6, 2016, and the said written reply presented by the Defendant was not presented as evidence, on the other hand, the evidence attached to the above written reply cannot be deemed to have been presented as evidence.