1. Defendant B’s KRW 191,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 28, 2018 to November 20, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 12 of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B (including each number, if any, and each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff was working as an employee of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) who was the head of the headquarters of Defendant B and lent money to Defendant B as follows, and that Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed money from the Plaintiff to October 20, 2017.

According to the annual loan amount of 1 March 26, 2017: (a) 45,00,000 on March 26, 2017; (b) 48,000,00 on March 28, 2017; and (c) 25,000,000 on April 13, 2017; (b) 5,000 on April 26, 200 on April 26, 2017; (c) 10,000,00 on June 28, 2017; and (d) 20,000,000,000 on July 19, 208; and (e) 10,000,000 on August 24, 2017; and (e) 10,000,000 on August 24, 200; and (e) 18,008.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) Defendant B and Defendant C were in a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff’s assertion and Defendant C, but Defendant B had to pay the instant company to Defendant B (hereinafter “E”).

) The shopping mall paid the sales commission to Defendant C, and the company of this case is 5,956,868 won for the sales commission of the shopping mall in this case (hereinafter “instant commission”).

B paid to Defendant C.

In regard to this, the Defendants asserted that Defendant B paid a loan to Defendant C, but Defendant B’s obligation to Defendant C is a payment in lieu of an officetel as of July 29, 2015.