1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant A and B jointly and severally KRW 502,073,736 and KRW 500,791,506 among them, Defendant A and B shall be jointly and severally liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff on January 6, 2014.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A and B

(a) describe the grounds for the claim as set forth in the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of confession.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. 1 Determination as to the cause of claim 1) The facts as to the grounds for claim for acquisition of the attached sheet, and the following facts, do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, No. 1, 2, and 7, and the whole purport of the pleadings. A) On November 16, 2011, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C to lease lease deposit amounting to KRW 15 million and KRW 150,000,000,000,000 won per month of rent.

Defendant C received the instant real estate and made a move-in report around that time, and obtained a fixed date in the instant lease agreement on January 17, 2012.

B) On September 10, 2013, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant C to sell the instant real estate in KRW 32 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On September 12, 2013, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, Defendant B was in excess of the obligation. (A) The Plaintiff’s joint and several several liability claim against Defendant B against Defendant B was established on September 28, 2011, which was prior to the instant sales contract. As such, the said joint and several liability claim may be the preserved claim to claim revocation by asserting the existence of the instant sales contract and claiming revocation thereof. In addition, Defendant B’s act of selling the instant real estate in excess of the obligation becomes an ordinary creditor, including the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and the intent of Defendant B’s fraudulent act is presumed to have been invalidated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4856, Jul. 26, 201206).