1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant C, D, and E jointly and severally KRW 172,143,448;

B. The defendant A and B are above.

1. Indication of claims: To be as shown in the attached Form;

2. Grounds;

(a) Defendant A, A, B, C, and D: Judgment to recommend confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(b) Defendant E: Each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings;

3. Defendant E’s assertion argues that it is unreasonable to claim damages for delay as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings against the Defendants, even if the Plaintiff received all principal payments during the final and conclusive judgment against the Defendants, even though the Plaintiff received all payments for delay, it is unreasonable to claim damages for delay as to KRW 172,143,448 of the said damages for delay.

The obligation for delay of a pecuniary obligation constitutes a damage liability arising from the delay of a monetary obligation, and the obligation for which the due date has not been specified, and thus, an obligor is liable for delay from the time when the obligee received a claim for performance of the obligation from the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da59237, Dec. 9, 2010). Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case and claimed performance of KRW 172,143,448, the obligor is liable for delay as a result of the Defendant’s failure to perform the obligation. Therefore, the Defendant’