1. Defendant C’s KRW 70,000,000 and its annual amount from July 3, 201 to December 29, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted and received, from Defendant C, a promissory note with a face value of 40,000,000, and the due date of payment, July 2, 201, as indicated in D Company B.

The above promissory note contains the seals affixed by Defendant B, and is written as “C” with the seals affixed thereon.

(hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). (b)

On November 4, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted and received from Defendant C a certificate of borrowing stating that “The amount of KRW 30,000,000,000, and the above amount should be borrowed as a relation to the construction of the mushroom Feed Factory in China and repaid until April 30, 2011.”

(hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”). C.

On May 24, 2010, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10,000,00 to Defendant B’s account; KRW 10,000,000 on May 26, 2010; KRW 10,000,000 on June 26, 2010; and KRW 20,000,00 on November 30, 2010; and KRW 8,080,000 on the E’s account on December 29, 2010; and KRW 1,920,00 on the F’s account under the name of account on December 31, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B and the above 70,000,000 won are borrowed from Defendant C, and the Defendants jointly and severally pay the above amount to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no evidence to prove that the stamp image following the Defendant B’s name, which is located in the promissory note No. 2, was affixed with Defendant B, or that Defendant B affixed the above seal, cannot be recognized as the establishment of the truth of the said promissory note. Thus, the said promissory note cannot be used as evidence.

According to each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5, the plaintiff remitted 50,000,000 won to the account under the name of the defendant B, and the fact that the plaintiff sent and received the defendant B and Kakakao Stockholm messages may be recognized, but the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the above defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, and it is otherwise recognized.