1. As to KRW 252,827,864 and KRW 163,380,00 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 252,827,864 from December 17, 2015 to December 31, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant with the following terms, and on December 10, 2009, loaned KRW 163,380,000 to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan agreement” and its loan claims are referred to as “the instant loan claims”). Interest rate: Interest rate: Interest rate of 1.5% - expiration date of loan period of MOR: Maximum damages rate of 19% per annum on December 31, 201: 19% per annum.

B. The Defendant did not repay the principal and interest of the above loan, and as of December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff’s loan balance against the Defendant is as follows:

The interest rate of KRW 252,827,864 per annum on the interest rate of KRW 13.05% per annum, 163,380,00 won, 89,47,864 won, 252,827,864, and the total amount of interest and delay damages on the loan principal [the grounds for recognition: each statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 252,827,864 as well as the principal of KRW 163,380,00 from December 17, 2015 to December 31, 2015, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, the agreed rate of KRW 13.05% per annum, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the claim is 1) The loan agreement of this case in Chapter 1 is the Songdo Officetel sold by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Officetel”).

The instant loan agreement constitutes a collective loan for the payment of intermediate payments among the sales contracts, and therefore, the instant agreement is incorporated into the instant sales contract, and thus, the instant agreement is also terminated in cases where the instant sales contract for officetels is cancelled.

However, the sales contract of the instant officetel was revoked, which led to the termination of the instant loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff can not seek a direct return of the loan to the defendant.