1. The Defendants together with the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 210,00,000 and Defendant B from September 25, 2010.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3.

On September 25, 2009, the Defendants issued a joint note with a face value of KRW 210,000,000,000 at face value, the place of payment, and the place of payment, Seoul, the date of payment, and one promissory note with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On September 28, 2009, the Defendants stated in the instant promissory note that “in the event of delay in the payment of the amount of the amount, a compulsory execution is recognized” and issued by a notary public to the Plaintiff under the notarial act from the law firm static citizens (No. 239 of the deed).

B. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff presented the instant promissory note to the Defendants.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the Defendants’ obligations to pay promissory notes, barring any other special circumstance, the Defendants, a joint issuer of the Promissory Notes, are jointly obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes as stated in the Promissory Notes and its delay damages to the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes.

B. The Defendants’ assertion and its determination 1) The Defendants’ assertion purported that the Plaintiff lent KRW 210 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. and received the instant promissory note from the Defendants. However, Defendant B Co., Ltd. cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it did not borrow KRW 210 million from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted. 2) The Defendants asserted that there is no relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ delivery of the instant promissory note, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ delivery of the instant promissory note. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion are without merit.

C. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly put together with the Plaintiff KRW 210,000,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s presentation of the payment of the Promissory Notes is followed.