1. Defendant B, Yong-Nam Industries, and E jointly with the Plaintiff, KRW 100,00,000,000,000,000,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received endorsement and transfer from Defendant E any promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) stating “CF Co., Ltd.; (b) issuer F Co., Ltd.; (c), G at the place of issue; (d) the par value KRW 100 million; (e) H; and (e) the due date; and (e) the payment of the instant Promissory Notes was refused on June 3, 2014, on the grounds of alteration.

B. Of the back pages of the Promissory Notes, Defendant B Co., Ltd., and C Co., Ltd., to the defendant Youngnam Industry, Defendant Youngnam Industry Co., Ltd., and Defendant Youngnam Industry, respectively, endorsement by Defendant E to the Plaintiff.

C. However, the Promissory Notes of this case revealed that the Promissory Notes of this case were issued and distributed entirely by means of duplicating, etc. in a non-specific way.

Meanwhile, Defendant C’s custodian D (hereinafter “Defendant Rehabilitation Company”) is the representative of Defendant C who was appointed or deemed as a custodian in the rehabilitation procedure.

(1) The Defendant’s rehabilitation company’s legal representative, stated that the rehabilitation procedure against C was abolished on September 1, 2014 at the first date for pleading, but it appears that there was a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures again; hereinafter “Defendant’s rehabilitation company” also referred to as “Defendant’s rehabilitation company,” unless it is separately necessary to distinguish the grounds for recognition.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s rehabilitation company is an endorser of the instant promissory note, and is obligated to pay the instant promissory note to the Plaintiff jointly with the remaining Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendant’s rehabilitation company is obligated to pay the instant amount.