1. Defendant C’s KRW 60,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 1, 2012 to April 7, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 24, 2003, the Plaintiff received the registration of transfer of ownership as to 3,114 square meters of D forest land, Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On August 27, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants on the condition that the instant forest and E forest and F forest are used as joint access roads, with the terms that the Plaintiff sells part of the instant forest and land (the right side of the instant drawing) to the Defendants for KRW 120 million (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On August 27, 2011, the Defendants issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 120 million (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) jointly issued by the Defendants to secure the payment of the purchase price. D.

Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on August 29, 201, and KRW 50 million on January 2, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. Indication of Claim: Claim for payment of KRW 60,000,000 as a result of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C.

Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. In principle, where multiple parties become the debtor with respect to the cause of the claim, in the absence of a special declaration of intention, the multiple debtors bear the installment obligations. However, in the event of the occurrence of the claim relationship by the parties’ declaration of intention, it is reasonable to interpret that multiple debtors bear an indivisible obligation in light of the nature of the payment, the practices of the transaction, the intentions of the parties, the relationship between the parties and the transaction circumstances, etc. Therefore, the court is well aware of the aforementioned circumstances in the interpretation of the specific case to be the debtor by contract.