(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”). - Defendant B is the contractor of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant C”) has awarded the said apartment construction contract to Defendant B as the executor of the said apartment.

Defendant C decided to transfer the right to sell the above apartment E-dong E-dong (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”) to Defendant B as a payment for the construction price, and prepared a sales contract with Defendant B on December 19, 2014, and delivered it to Defendant B.

[Ground of Recognition] between the plaintiff and the defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute between the plaintiff of confession and the defendant C, and the statement in Gap 1 through 4

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The 130 million won which was unpaid and the damages for delay pertaining to the loans of this case which are the cause of claim

B. Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment to recommend confession

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff's assertion - Defendant C issued a sales contract for the apartment of this case as security for the loan of this case through Defendant B.

Defendant C, through H, agreed to sell the instant apartment to a third party and collect the instant loan claim with the sale price after receiving the original contract for the instant apartment from the Plaintiff. -

Therefore, Defendant C, as a collateral obligor, must repay the instant loan jointly with Defendant C.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was that Defendant C issued the instant apartment sales contract to the Plaintiff via Defendant B as security for the instant loan.

In addition, it would like to collect the loan debt of this case as the sale price when collecting the sales contract for the apartment of this case from the plaintiff.