1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 72 million and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 4, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. As to Defendant B, ① KRW 15 million on October 31, 2012, ② KRW 27 million on December 28, 2012, ③ KRW 8,200,000 on February 8, 2013, ④ KRW 10 million on March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared each of the following investment deposit agreements with the Defendant B, and paid the corresponding amount to the Defendant B on each date of preparation.

At the bottom of each of the above investment deposit contracts, the trade name and official seal of Liz Partners Company is affixed.

The contract period: 10% per annum, and the defendant B shall repay the principal (principal x the final interest rate) to the plaintiff on the contract maturity date.

In other words, Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff the amount that is short of the assessment of the operating account on the contract date that is not 110% of the principal.

Investment deposit service fees - Basic fees: None - Performance fees: Revenue exceeding the fixed interest rate for deposit assets shall be paid in full to the defendant B.

A person in charge of discretionary investment: At the time of termination within one year, the principal loss burden on the date of termination shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the profit on the date of termination shall be repaid in full to the defendant B.

B. On March 20, 2013, Lnis Partnership Co., Ltd. was changed to the Defendant Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on deemed confessions as to Defendant B (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination on Defendant Company

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a financial investment business entity under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) and the Defendant B’s employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act, who is responsible for managing and supervising the Defendant B to prevent unfair investment recommendation, unregistered business conduct, and fund-raising business conduct. However, the Defendant B neglected such supervisory duty, and thus, Defendant B suffered damages equivalent to the amount of investment.