1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 4, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 50 million, which is part of the funds for the performance of the Plaintiff’s performance of the Plaintiff’s performance on August 29, 2015 promoted by the Defendant, to the new bank account in the name of C requested by the Defendant. The Plaintiff directly transferred KRW 50 million on the same day to the new bank account in the name of C requested by the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repay the said money, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the following agreements on November 10, 2015:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). On August 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant promised to repay as follows, as follows, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff for the performance of the water sources operated by the Defendant on August 29, 2015, and on November 10, 2015, approximately 50 million from the date of borrowing to November 10, 2015.

:

1. Date of borrowing: July 30, 2015: The repayment amount: KRW 50 million; interest shall be exempted; and

3. Date of redemption: on February 28, 2016, I agree that reimbursement will be promised as set out above, and if it can not be repaid by the date of promise, it will be at a disadvantage in property or civil or criminal liability.

C. On March 14, 2016, the Defendant transferred KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, testimony of witness D, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 40 million and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from March 4, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

B. The judgment of the defendant regarding the defendant's assertion is around 2015 that the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party D worked as an executive officer in C, and the plaintiff who was the auditor in C's large-scale contact "E" promoted at the time. Although the above amount was invested, if the plaintiff knew that it was the date of investment, the plaintiff's spouse does not have to do so.