1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 52,500,000 and its amount from May 27, 2014:

B. Defendant C is the Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while lending KRW 50 million to D, received one copy of the promissory note issued by Defendant B (e.g., face value: KRW 50 million; due date: January 30, 2010; and the place of payment: Daegu Metropolitan City; hereinafter “instant Promissory note”) from Defendant D as collateral.

B. Although the Plaintiff presented the bill of this case from D at the place of payment, it was rejected on the ground of non-transaction.

C. On March 26, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) sought Defendant B, stating the fact that the payment was refused; and (b) Defendant B, as the issuer of the Promissory Notes, drafted a letter stating that “The Plaintiff, as the holder of the Promissory Notes, agrees to recover the Promissory Notes by April 23, 2010, along with the principal amount of KRW 50 million and interest corresponding thereto (2.5 million).”

When Defendant B was unable to recover the Promissory Notes by the date agreed to recover the Promissory Notes, he requested the Plaintiff to extend the due date on May 14, 2010, and Defendant C prepared a letter stating that “In the event Defendant B is unable to recover the Promissory Notes by May 31, 2010, Defendant C shall be jointly and severally liable for joint and several liability and withdraw the Promissory Notes.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 52.5 million, and Defendant C is liable for the joint and several surety for KRW 50 million out of the above amount.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion, although there was a fact that the Plaintiff prepared a written statement on March 26, 2010, Defendant B merely prepared by the Plaintiff’s intimidation and conference, and did not have an intent to pay the money agreed on in the written statement, Defendant B asserts to the effect that the said declaration of intent is void or made by coercion as it constitutes a declaration of intention not to be a medical doctor, and thus, such declaration of intent is revoked.

Any declaration of intention.