A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount from February 5, 2007:

B. Defendant C is charged with KRW 15,000,000.

A. On March 14, 2007, the Plaintiff indicated the claim and lent the amount of KRW 15 million to Defendant C at 66% per annum and the due date on April 14, 2007.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as claimed by the Plaintiff within the agreed damages for delay from April 15, 2007 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the due date.

(b) Grounds: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant E

A. On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed 34 million won to D on February 27, 2007 as 66% per annum for delay damages and as of March 27, 2007. On the same day, Defendant E guaranteed the above obligation against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant E is jointly and severally liable with D to pay the borrowed amount of KRW 34 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as claimed by the Plaintiff within the agreed damages for delay from March 28, 2007 to the day following the due date for repayment.

(b) Grounds: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B and D

A. In full view of the purport of the evidence evidence No. 1 and the entire argument as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Defendant B on February 5, 2007 at the rate of 66% per annum on May 5, 2007, interest, and delay damages. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30 million and interest or delay damages thereon to the Plaintiff. 2) As such, the said money constitutes illegal consideration since the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff would engage in commercial sex acts while working as a male loan from Hoststa, the said money constitutes illegal consideration (it does not directly express this).