1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 45,00,000 and Defendant B from November 20, 2018 to February 8, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff and Defendant B were legally married couples who completed the marriage report, and the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit, etc. on or around January 10, 2019 with the Suwon Family Court’s Ansan Branch (No. 2019ddan30168).

B. Defendant B received a total of KRW 45 million from the Plaintiff on several occasions. The Defendants issued and delivered the following loan certificates to the Plaintiff on November 11, 2018 (hereinafter “instant loan certificates”).

The loan certificate 45 million won is borrowed from Defendant C, B, and the Plaintiff shall be repaid to the Plaintiff by the due date until November 19, 2018. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry or voice of evidence A 11 through 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In a case where an adjudication on the cause of the claim is recognized as having been made, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even though the existence and content of the declaration of intent indicated in the document is clear and acceptable.

(2) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from November 20, 2018 to February 8, 2019, Defendant B, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint from November 20, 2018, the day following the due date for repayment, to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C, the day following the due date for payment, to February 9, 2019, and the day after the due date for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until February 9, 2019, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

As to this, Defendant B did not borrow the above KRW 45 million from the Plaintiff, but argued that the Plaintiff, who is under obligation to support, was merely for the common life of the married couple, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The Defendants’ assertion regarding the Defendants is subject to intimidation.