1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for the expenses of demand procedure shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 453,670,813 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 481,300 of the expenses for demand procedure spent by the plaintiff in the payment order procedure that the plaintiff requested against the defendant. As to the legitimacy of the above part of the claim, we examine ex officio as to whether it is legitimate.

Urging procedural costs constitute a kind of litigation costs. The amount paid as a lawsuit can only be repaid after a final judgment became final and conclusive, and there is no interest in filing a lawsuit separately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 200). The lawsuit on the part of the Plaintiff’s demand procedural costs claim is unlawful.

2. Determination on the remainder of the instant lawsuit

A. Facts of recognition 1) Young Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yyoung”);

on the basis of January 1, 2015, he/she shall refer to his/her personal person (hereinafter referred to as “private person personal person”).

(C) approximately KRW 4,121,622,00 for short-term loans (hereinafter “instant short-term loans”)

(2) On April 2015, the Japanese personal person set up a corporate division plan by dividing the category of business by means of personal division and establishing a new defendant. One of the specific division methods, the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the corporate debt of the Japanese personal person pursuant to Article 539-9(1) of the Commercial Act.

On June 3, 2015, the Defendant was divided and established in a personal register in accordance with the above corporate division plan.

3) On January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 532,00,000 to a Young Company on December 31, 2016 and from September 1, 2016, at the rate of 12% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) At the time, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed (No. 1347, No. 1347, No. 2016, No. 1347, No. 2016) to the effect that no objection is raised even if compulsory execution was conducted immediately when the Plaintiff did not repay the above loan to the Plaintiff.