2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) issued each promissory note (hereinafter “each promissory note of this case”) to the network G (the deceased on May 16, 2012, hereinafter “the deceased”) with KRW 200 million on March 17, 2004, KRW 30 million on March 29, 2004, and KRW 150 million on May 13, 2004, with each of the said promissory notes of KRW 380 million on the total face value of each of the said promissory notes of this case (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). around August 2004, the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) prepared a loan certificate of KRW 380 million on the face value of the said respective promissory notes of KRW 380 million on the face value of each of the said notes of this case, and Defendant E jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of F on the said loan certificate.

B. Defendant D was the F’s representative director at the time of the issuance of the said promissory note and the written instrument of borrowing.

C. The deceased’s heir is the deceased’s heir, who is the plaintiff A and his children, and the plaintiff B, C and H.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiffs 1) The Deceased lent to Defendant D a loan of KRW 20 million on March 17, 2004, KRW 30 million on March 29, 2004, and KRW 150 million on May 13, 2004, respectively. Defendant E guaranteed Defendant D’s obligation to Defendant D’s deceased. In addition, the Defendants agreed to prepare and pay KRW 380 million to the deceased’s heir on May 19, 2012, as the deceased’s heir, around May 19, 2012.

3) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 84,444,44 to the Plaintiff A, and each of the Plaintiff B and C, according to the Plaintiffs’ shares of inheritance. (B) The Deceased was leased KRW 380,000,000 to F, not Defendant D.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant D should be dismissed due to the lack of standing to sue.

2 The extinctive prescription of each of the instant promissory notes has expired three years since the date of payment.

In addition, the loan claim against the loan certificate of this case has passed on December 31, 2014 after the lapse of ten years from the date on which the loan certificate of this case was prepared.