1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s obligation of KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on October 3, 2013 exists.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion (1) is liable to pay 20 million won to the Defendant as well as damages for delay, as the Plaintiff borrowed 20 million won from the Defendant on October 3, 2013, under the pretext of investment in Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

(2) The defendant, who was the representative director of the non-party company asserted by the plaintiff, recommended the plaintiff to make investments in the non-party company D and E.

On October 3, 2013, the Defendant, who was unable to make an investment, was transferred KRW 20 million from the non-party company to the Plaintiff on October 3, 2013, and had the Plaintiff re-transfer the money to the non-party company, thereby making the Plaintiff a punishment as if the Plaintiff invested KRW 20 million in the non-party company.

Therefore, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million from the Defendant on October 3, 2013, but did not borrow the said money.

Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant met the form of a monetary loan with respect to the above twenty million won.

Even if the plaintiff and the defendant are false marks that the plaintiff conspired, they are invalid.

B. The Defendant’s remittance of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on October 3, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.

However, according to the following facts and circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 (excluding the part rejected later), witness E’s testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Korean Bank Receiving Center, the facts acknowledged earlier cannot be deemed to have lent 20 million won to the plaintiff on October 3, 2013, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate regarding KRW 20 million, which was remitted to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s father and son F.