1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 86,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 11, 2017 to March 11, 2017.

1. The facts that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 86,00,000 to the plaintiff on September 15, 2015 until December 30, 2016. Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff's obligation to pay the above agreed amount to the plaintiff on the same day, and the fact that the Plaintiff extended the time limit for payment of the agreed amount to the plaintiff on February 10, 2017 at the request of the defendants.

According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 86,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from February 11, 2017 to March 11, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants are exempted from the obligation to pay the above agreed amount to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendants violated the commitments set out in the performance guarantee form set out in December 31, 2012, which was set out as a result of the said merger promotion by Defendant B, and that KRW 86,00,000,00 was incurred in the course of the said merger promotion between Defendant D and the Plaintiff, which was the actual management owner. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants were exempted from the obligation to pay the said agreed amount to the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion on the sole basis of the descriptions set forth in

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1, the obligation of this case was established under a separate agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants after much more than the above obligation commitment. Thus, the issue of violation of the above obligation commitment does not affect the performance of the above obligation.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.