1. Defendants B and D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 82.1 million, and Defendant B and Defendant D are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B and Defendant D are the couple’s simple names, and Defendant C are the births of Defendant D.

Defendant C on July 15, 200,000 on July 7, 2008, Defendant C on October 10, 200,000 on October 24, 2008, Defendant C3, 4,000 on November 28, 2008, Defendant C4 on February 21, 2009, Defendant B B on March 12, 2000,00 on March 26, 200, Defendant C6 on April 15, 200,00 on April 15, 200, Defendant C7, 200 on May 30, 200, Defendant C on May 29, 200, Defendant C30 on August 12, 200, Defendant C0 on May 30, 200, Defendant C0 on August 30, 200, Defendant C0 on August 30, 2009

B. The Plaintiff loaned the Defendant B totaling KRW 89.1 million as indicated in the following table:

(hereinafter referred to as the “loans” (hereinafter referred to as the “loans”) c.

Defendant B repaid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 2 million on November 17, 2014, and KRW 7 million on November 18, 2014.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of 82,100,000 won (i.e., the loan of this case 89,100,000 won - seven million won) and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1 on Defendant B’s defense 1) The Plaintiff, along with Defendant B, shall set up in Hong Kong E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) in order to conduct the business for Libya with Defendant B.

(2) According to the evidence No. 1-1, 2009, the fact that the non-party company was established in Hong Kong as the joint representative of the Plaintiff and Defendant B on November 9, 2009 is recognized, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff renounced the right or exempted the obligation with respect to the instant loan on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including the serial number) alone, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant B's defense is justified.