A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 15 million from August 28, 2009, KRW 20 million from September 9, 2009, and KRW 15 million from September 17, 2009 to the account under the name of the Defendant C, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “the remittance of this case”). (b)

Defendant B lent KRW 46 million from the Plaintiff on June 1, 2011 to KRW 20 million on June 30, 2011;

7. To pay 26 million won up to 30.30

“The loan certificate of this case (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) committed an agreement with Defendant C to be liable for the above loan obligation at the time when the Plaintiff loaned the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 50 million to Defendant B. As such, the Defendants, as a joint obligor, must pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the principal other than the amount repaid out of the above loan, and the delay damages therefor. (2) Defendant B merely received and delivered the investment money to E on behalf of the Plaintiff, which entered into an investment agreement on the agreement and restaurant business with the Plaintiff, and as such, Defendant B merely received and delivered the investment money on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the said Defendant E is obligated to return the investment money received by the instant remittance to the Plaintiff. (b) The instant loan certificate was made by the Plaintiff’s coercion, and thus null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

3) Upon Defendant C’s request for receipt of money from Defendant B, a bad credit holder at the time of the transfer of the instant claim, the Plaintiff merely delivered the money transferred from the Plaintiff to the said Defendant as it is, and did not express the Plaintiff’s intent to jointly repay the said Defendant’s loan obligations. (B) As long as the conclusion of the judgment on the cause of the instant claim is recognized to be genuine, the court may deny the entries therein.