1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C shall pay KRW 100,000,000 as well as 15% per annum from September 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2016, Defendant D borrowed KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff as of May 3, 2016 on the date of maturity for payment, and Defendant D prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate with the primary debtor B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), the surety C, and D (A).

B. On April 7, 2016, Defendant D borrowed KRW 10,000,00,000 to the Plaintiff on May 6, 2016, with the date of maturity specified as the date of maturity on May 6, 2016, Defendant D prepared a loan certificate (Evidence 6) with the primary debtor company, Defendant C, and D, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

C. On May 3, 2016, Defendant D borrowed KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2016, with the due date set as of June 30, 2016, Defendant D prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate (Evidence A7) with the primary debtor company, Defendant C, and D.

[Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. 1) The auditor of the Plaintiff Company, the auditor of the Defendant Company, was insufficient to pay money to the Plaintiff as a result of the lack of funds necessary for the Defendant Company’s Location E Loan, and was used for the Defendant Company. Accordingly, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the borrowed money as the principal obligor of the instant borrowed money. 2) The Defendant Company, as the principal obligor of the instant borrowed money, did not have any right to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant Company, and there was no fact that the representative director of the Defendant Company, approved or ratified it.

Therefore, the defendant company did not have the obligation to repay the borrowed money of this case.

B. As to whether Defendant D has the right to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant Company, it is insufficient to recognize the foregoing only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is without merit.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claims against Defendant C and D, Defendant D as the unauthorized representative of the Defendant Company.