A. Defendant B’s KRW 23,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 4, 2019 to October 15, 2019.

A. In full view of the purport (including the fact that the Defendant does not specifically dispute the Plaintiff’s claim) of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including evidence number), the facts as stated in the separate sheet (the part of Paragraph 3) can be acknowledged. 2) Accordingly, the balance that Defendant B did not pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 23,00,000, and the loan and balance that Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) did not pay to the Plaintiff are KRW 7,30,000.

B. 1) The Plaintiff on the part of Defendant B claimed damages for delay from November 6, 2018 against Defendant B, but the recipient of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 8 (e.g., content-certified mail) presented as the basis for the date of the initial payment of damages for delay cannot be deemed as effective against Defendant B due to the delivery of evidence No. 8 (e.g., content-certified mail) by Defendant B, rather than Defendant B, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the remainder payment with Defendant B before November 6, 2018. Therefore, it is difficult to view that Defendant B is liable for delay at the time of delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case. Accordingly, the initial date of the damages for delay with Defendant B is deemed as April 4, 2019, the date following the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 8, the Plaintiff’s entire pleadings as to the Defendant Company’s claim for the payment of the remainder payment amount through mail No. 30, etc. 181.

C. Unless there are special circumstances, Defendant B’s dispute over the scope of the obligation of the said Defendant since April 4, 2019, as well as KRW 23,00,000 to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.