1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 150,000,000 won and the period from December 8, 2010 to July 22, 2014.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to July 8, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 150,000,000 to the Eunpyeong Art Ballast Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Young Art Ballast”) at interest rate of 7% per annum, the due date for payment on December 7, 2010, and the fact that Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of the Defendant Pyeongtaek Chang Art Ballast Co., Ltd., and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the money paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant Pyeongtaekn is not a loan, but an investment, and therefore, if the objective meaning of the language and text is clear in cases where a certain content of the contract is written in writing between the parties as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized in accordance with the language and text. In particular, in cases where a significant impact on the legal relationship between the parties is caused by interpreting differently from the objective meaning of the language and text, the more strict interpretation of the text and text should be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26769, Nov. 11, 201). Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable, since there is no evidence that it is against the fact that the said money is an investment deposit, unlike the written evidence No. 1 (Monetary Loan Contract)

2. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion of exemption from obligations

A. The Defendants’ assertion filed a lawsuit against the Defendants in around 201, but concluded a new monetary loan agreement with B, the actual counterpart to the investment, and withdrawn the lawsuit against the Defendants. This is either exempt the Defendants from the obligation to repay the borrowed money, or it is deemed that B exempted the Defendants from the obligation to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants are obliged to pay the borrowed money any longer.