1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff, which ordered additional payments under paragraph 2 below.

1. The judgment of the first instance court prior to the remanding of the scope of the trial by this court rendered a revocation of a part of the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim, and ordered the Defendant to pay “50,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from June 8, 2012 to May 16, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full repayment.”

As to this, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each part of the judgment against them. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, while accepting the plaintiff's appeal, reversed the part against the plaintiff in the judgment against the court before remand, and remanded that part to this court.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the part that was reversed and remanded, i.e., the part that was lost by the plaintiff in the judgment before remand.

2. The Plaintiff, on January 5, 201, lent KRW 100,000,000 to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) with interest rate of KRW 1,500,000 per month. At the time, as the Defendant’s father, C, a representative director of E, at the time, guaranteed the Defendant’s agent and the Defendant’s agent, as the Defendant’s agent, the Defendant’s agent and the Defendant’s agent, respectively, jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation (hereinafter “instant loan obligation”).

C In order to secure the payment of the instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff, each of them issued a promissory note of KRW 50,000,000 at a face value of June 30, 201, each of which was issued by E, and one of promissory note of KRW 50,000 at a face value of KRW 50,000,000 at a face value of December 26, 2011 (bill No. G; hereinafter “second Promissory note”) at a face value of KRW 50,00,00 at a face value of 26, 201.

C The first bill is returned from the Plaintiff and then is issued by H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) with a face value of KRW 50,000,000 at the face value of December 26, 201, which was issued by the Plaintiff at the time of the refund of the first bill, I, hereinafter referred to as “third bill”.

B delivered to the Plaintiff.

On December 27, 201, the Plaintiff offered a payment proposal for the third bill and received KRW 50,000,000 on the bill, but the second bill is defaulted.