2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On January 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 100 million to the Defendants; (b) the Defendants returned only KRW 30 million on July 2, 2012; and (c) did not refund the remainder of KRW 70 million; and (d) filed a claim against the Defendants for payment of KRW 70 million.

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s lending KRW 100 million to the Defendants, the Plaintiff, on January 1, 2012, was ordered to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “D”) for which Defendant B served as the representative director and E Co., Ltd (hereinafter “E was ordered to be dissolved under Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 1, 2014; hereinafter “E”) for which Defendant C served as the representative director and transferred the above loans to the said corporation’s account, and the Plaintiff, as a result, may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff received KRW 30 million out of the interest and principal from D’s account, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are not the Defendants, but the Defendants.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the defendants are the borrower is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendants guaranteed the obligations of the above corporations with their respective resident registration numbers written in the name of D and E, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the borrowed amount of KRW 70 million as the guarantor for the above corporations.

According to each of the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 2-2, the Defendants’ respective resident registration numbers are recognized. However, the above facts alone are that the Defendants guaranteed the obligations of the above corporations to borrow money.