2. The Defendants shall jointly and severally file with the Plaintiff KRW 906,500,000 as well as June 26, 2009.

A. Plaintiff 1) From May 24, 2009 to November 25, 201, the Defendants were obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan and the damages for delay since they did not borrow a total of 5,000,000 Chinese currency from the Plaintiff during the period from May 24, 2009 to November 25, 201. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan and the damages for delay. (2) The Plaintiff lent the money to the Defendants from time to time without having set the due date for payment in addition to the loan set forth in the above paragraph (1). The amount claimed by the Defendants was paid to the Defendants in order to discharge the above separate loan obligations. (b) The instant lawsuit is unlawful as the international jurisdiction of the Korean court

2) Lending the 5,00,000 bills to the Defendants are not the Plaintiff but the J in China, and the Plaintiff is an employee of the bond company operated by J. Furthermore, the Defendants repaid all of the above borrowed money by remitting money to the deposit account designated by J. 3) even if lending the above 5,00,000 bills to the Defendants to the Defendants, the Defendants paid the said borrowed money in full by paying the Plaintiff, etc. over several times.

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. Article 2(1) of the Act on Private International Law provides, “Where a party or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction. In this case, in determining the existence of a substantive relation, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction.” In addition, Article 2(2) provides, “The court shall determine the existence of the international jurisdiction, taking into account the provisions of the domestic law’s jurisdiction, and shall consider the special nature of the international jurisdiction in light of the purport of paragraph