A. Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to Defendant F for KRW 3,00,000 and as from October 22, 2009.

A. The indication of claim: (a) on October 21, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 3,000,000 to Defendant B on the joint and several guarantee of Defendant F on October 21, 2008 by setting the interest rate of KRW 4% per annum and October 21, 2010; and (b) on October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 13,000,000 to Defendant F on October 15, 2009 by setting the interest rate of KRW 4% per annum, and on October 15, 2011, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, which is the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, from the date of full payment.

(b) As to Defendant B: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act): As to Defendant F, by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D and E

A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned 3,00,000 won to defendant D on November 7, 2008 with the joint and several surety of defendant F, with the interest rate of 4% on November 7, 2010, and with the due date of repayment of 4% on November 7, 2010, and with the interest rate of 4,000,000 won to defendant E on December 15, 208, each fact that the plaintiff lent 4,00,000 won to defendant E on December 15, 2008 is recognized.

Therefore, Defendant D and E are jointly and severally liable with Defendant F to pay the Plaintiff each of the above loans and interest accrued at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the restriction rate under the Interest Limitation Act, from November 8, 2009 and December 16, 2009 to the date of full payment, respectively, as asserted by the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant D and E alleged that at the time of the preparation of each of the instant loans (No. 2-1 and No. 3-1 of the evidence A) by Defendant D and E, Defendant D and E claimed that they signed the creditor’s joint and several liability jointly and severally liable with Defendant F was blank, and the Plaintiff did not pay the money to Defendant F. However, the Plaintiff appears to have lent money to Defendant D and E through Defendant F, and that Defendant D and E received money from Defendant F, and Defendant D and E were Defendant D and E.