1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B’s principal of KRW 154,566,160 and its principal of KRW 140,000,000:

B. Defendant C shall be 152,735.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff: (a) executed a general loan (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (b) on January 22, 2014, the remaining principal and interest as of January 22, 2014 are as follows.

(1) As of January 22, 2014, interest rate of 10.7.5% for interest and interest on delay as of May 7, 2010; 140,00,000; 146,160 C on May 7, 2010; 18% on May 7, 2010; 132,00,000,000,000,735,780 B on June 3, 2011; 20.35% of the principal and interest on delay calculated on June 3, 2011 (i.e., 20,000,000,000,000,36,325,000 won and interest on delay as of May 7, 2012 (i.e., the principal and interest on delay) calculated on June 3, 2013; 30,307,0005 won and interest on KRW 13636,53636,636,5.4

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The gist of the argument is that the actual party to the loan agreement of this case is not the Defendants, and D had the Defendants deception and enter into the loan agreement of this case with D and the employees of the Plaintiff. Even if the parties to the loan agreement of this case were the Defendants, the Plaintiff was unable to pay the Defendants as a type obligor at the time and actually carried out the loan with the Defendants as the principal obligor without the intent to actually lend the Defendants and bear their obligations. Thus, the loan agreement of this case is null and void as a false representation based on a false appearance.

B. In order to establish false representation of legal reasoning, there is a difference between the truth and the indication of declaration of intention and an agreement with the other party as to the inconsistency, and the third party is a monetary loan agreement, etc.