2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff loaned money to Defendant B and C several times from 2007, which had been engaged in credit business, and was partly repaid.

B. While the Plaintiff urged Defendant B and C to pay the principal and interest of the loan, on September 28, 2009, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants KRW 60 million in total on the 30th day of each month from October 30, 2009 to six occasions.

(Provided, That the Plaintiff received a letter of commitment from Defendant B, the payer, and Defendant C and D Co., Ltd. (former Co., Ltd. E) as joint and several sureties, which are the joint and several sureties, as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining KRW 56 million after deducting the already paid KRW 4 million out of the agreed amount of KRW 60 million. The agreement is deemed to fall under the novation that has extinguished the old obligation and has created a new obligation, and thus the statute of limitations has not expired as a civil claim.

(2) The Defendants forced Defendant B to withdraw the case in which the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and forced the Plaintiff to prepare and present the above written statement. The Defendants’ agreement concluded by coercion is revoked.

It is not so.

Even if the Plaintiff leased several times to Defendant B, the credit service provider, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case five years after the due date of payment of the above claim, the extinctive prescription of the above claim was completed.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 60 million as provided in the above written notice of payment.

However, the plaintiff's loan claims against defendant B, a credit service provider, shall be regarded as commercial claims.