2. The defendants are the defendants.

A. On January 31, 2007, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a credit transaction agreement with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E bank”) under the comprehensive collateral guarantee (130,000,000 won guarantee amount) between Defendant C and directors D, the representative director of the company, and borrowed KRW 100 million from the said bank.

B. On August 30, 2010, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) acquiring loan claims and joint security deposit claims under the instant agreement from E Bank (hereinafter “the instant bonds”) filed an application for a payment order with the Defendants and D seeking payment of the instant bonds against the Defendants and D, who have lost the benefit of time due to delay in the repayment of loan obligations. On September 3, 2010, the instant case rendered a final and conclusive judgment with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010 tea 62872 on September 3, 2010 as “the Defendants and D jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff at the rate of 20% per annum from September 14, 2010 to the date of full payment, and Defendant C’s payment order and D shall not exceed KRW 130,000,000,000 (hereinafter “former payment order”).

(c)

On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiff again acquired the instant claim from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) that acquired the instant claim from F.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence of No. 1 to 4, Eul evidence of No. 1 to 1 (which include a number of numbers)

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The Plaintiff requested the Defendants to pay the expenses for demand procedure related to the application for the instant payment order, but the amount of the expenses for the lawsuit can be repaid after the judgment became final and conclusive, and there is no benefit to bring a lawsuit separately (Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577 delivered on May 12, 200), and this part of the lawsuit is an incidental law.

3. The assertion.