A. The Plaintiff, a dealer of construction materials, supplied the construction materials equivalent to KRW 200,000 for the new hotel construction work to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and received four copies of promissory notes in lieu of the payment of the construction materials (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”).

B. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant B, the actual operator of D on November 1, 2004, that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 equivalent to the face value of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2004, with interest rate of KRW 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Defendant C, the construction business operator in charge of the construction of the Promissory Notes, as a joint and several liability for the Defendant B’s debt under the instant agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: The absence of dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, Defendant C: Article 150(3) and (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C, a primary debtor, and joint and several sureties, jointly and severally, filed a lawsuit claiming for payment of KRW 80 million out of the face value of the Promissory Notes in the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff from the Cheongju District Court 2006Kadan652, which is the Cheongju District Court 2006Kadan652, and the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C, a primary debtor, and the joint and several sureties, a joint and several sureties, had the claim in this case in order to interrupt prescription of the remaining amount of KRW 120 million.

120,000,000 won and the interest thereon with an agreement of 25% per annum from November 1, 2004 to the date of full payment, which is the date of the contract of this case, shall be liable to pay the interest and delay damages.

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant B’s assertion was concluded with the Plaintiff, a merchant, and thus, according to the instant agreement.