1. The Defendant’s KRW 260,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 12, 2015 to June 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. On February 201, 201, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to lend construction funds in the course of the process that the construction works were to be performed under the name of Ro-ro Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ro-ro Construction”). On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to receive interest equivalent to 50% of the principal and the leased principal of the loan and transferred KRW 200 million to the account on the side of the attached property under the pretext of the loan.

B) On May 201, 201, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a copy of the loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million and paid KRW 200 million and KRW 100 million in profit within February 27, 2012,” with respect to the above loan obligations. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and according to the fact that the Defendant’s obligation to repay the loan obligations is recognized, the amount of KRW 100 million stated in the above loan certificate can be deemed as the parties to the agreement on the above loan obligations. Barring special circumstances, the Defendant may be deemed to have paid the principal and interest of the loan obligations to the Plaintiff up to February 27, 2012 by preparing and issuing the above loan certificate to the Plaintiff, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the loan and delay damages to the loan obligations to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the decision of the 100 million won defense is revoked, since the defendant knew that the above loan certificate was a payment agreement of KRW 100 million with respect to the above loan amount at the time of the preparation of the above loan certificate and erroneously prepared and delivered the above loan certificate to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant was absent from the mistake as the defendant alleged above.