2. The plaintiff's defendant.

A. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff (formerly: School Construction Co., Ltd.) transferred KRW 900 million (hereinafter “amount of transfer of this case”) to the national bank account (Account Number: D) in the name of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). The Defendant Co., Ltd prepared a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating “90 million won: 90 million won per annum; 9% per annum; interest rate in arrears: 18% per annum; maturity: October 27, 2008: 208).

B. In addition, the Plaintiff was additionally prepared three occasions from the Defendant Company with the loan certificate in this case and the maturity date only, and the loan amount and interest rate, etc. shall be as follows: Three copies of the monetary loan agreement of the same contents [No. 1-2 (the maturity date of October 28, 2008: October 27, 2009), three (the maturity date of October 28, 2009: October 27, 2010): four (the maturity: October 28, 2010: October 27, 201)]; on January 29, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a short-term loan to the Plaintiff (90 million won) and the unpaid interest (sum 200 million won): Defendant B did not pay the remainder of the balance by 30% until December 31, 2010; Defendant B did not pay the remainder of the balance; and Defendant B did not pay the remainder of the balance by 130% until 13:1.10%.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Company seeking the performance of joint and several liability based on the instant loan certificate against the Defendant Company: (a) interest accrued during the period from April 28, 2008 to July 18, 2012, including KRW 400,834,492; (b) the total amount of KRW 1,300,834,492; and (c) the amount of KRW 900,000,000,000,000,000 from July 18, 2012; and (d) interest accrued from the date following the following day on the delayed payment

On January 31, 2013, the court of first instance accepted all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2012Gahap3839), but the appellate court rendered the instant remittance amount.