1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as an independent party intervenor KRW 200,000,000 and as a result, from July 5, 2008 to September 5, 2016.

The main lawsuit and the lawsuit of independent party intervention shall be considered together.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 2007, an independent party intervenor was asked to lend KRW 230,000,000 to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) from F, the actual representative of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

On July 5, 2007, an independent party intervenor lent a promissory note (for a promissory note 50,000,000 each of the face value) from the Plaintiff to the said F.

Before the due date of the said Promissory Notes, the Intervenor of the independent party concerned deposited money corresponding to the amount of the Promissory Notes into the settlement account.

B. At the end of July 2007, a loan certificate was drawn up that “Defendant B borrowed KRW 230,000,000,000 from the date of the loan, the maturity of which shall be one year from the date of the loan, and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and Defendant D’s joint and several sureties guarantee the above loan amount.”

The above loan certificate is not written by the creditor.

The above loan certificate was accompanied by the defendants' certificate of personal seal impression.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Byung evidence No. 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff and the independent party intervenor asserted that they lent KRW 200,000 to the defendants by delivering a promissory note to the defendants and paying the amount of the promissory note.

However, at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff was the creditor, and the plaintiff claimed the above loan. However, after the participation of the independent party, the plaintiff was the creditor, and the plaintiff was not the creditor.

(6) On November 24, 2016, an independent party intervenor filed a claim for the payment of the said loan to an independent party intervenor by asserting that an independent party intervenor is a creditor through an independent party intervention.

The Defendants borrowed money from the Plaintiff in response to the main claim prior to the participation of the independent party.