A. The description of the claim as to Defendant B in the attached Form “the cause of claim” is as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

(b) Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The fact that Defendant C, along with Defendant B on October 21, 201, issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 100,000,000, and the due date on January 21, 201 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). The Defendants, on the date of issuance of the instant promissory note, prepared and executed a notarial deed with a content that recognizes compulsory execution based on the instant promissory note (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) to the Plaintiff, may be recognized if there is no dispute between the parties concerned or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in subparagraph 1.

B. Determination 1) According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a promissory note amount of KRW 100,000,000 and delay damages, barring any special circumstance. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 100,000,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is jointly and severally with Defendant C, and the Plaintiff is liable to return KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff lent KRW 1,00,00 to Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, considering the overall purport of each of the statements as indicated in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3-1, 3-2, the Plaintiff is the Defendant B and the Defendant C is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, and the Plaintiff is not liable for the part of the Plaintiff’s promissory note as the issuer of the instant case.