1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff, KRW 80,000,000, and as to the above:

A. Defendant B is from December 25, 2018 to August 25, 2019.

1. Determination as to loan claims

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Articles 208(3)2, 150(3)3, and 194 through 196 of the Civil Procedure Act of Defendant B (a judgment where the Defendant was notified of the date of publication and did not appear on the date of pleading) of the Defendant C Civil Procedure Act;

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants shall be liable for delay of payment of KRW 80,00,00 for each of the loans of March 30, 2006, KRW 30,000,00 for loans of KRW 10,000 on or around June 23, 2006, and KRW 10,000 for each of the loans of this case (hereinafter "each of the loans of this case") upon the plaintiff's request for repayment on May 23, 2007. The plaintiff agreed to pay the total amount of each of the loans of this case in lump sum prior to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit. Since the plaintiff demanded lump sum repayment of each of the loans of this case prior to the date of the last loan and guarantee, from May 24, 2007 to the date of full payment, the defendants shall be liable for delay of payment of KRW 80,000,000 for each of the loans of this case.

As to each of the loans of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, the facts that the repayment period has not been determined shall be deemed to have been led to the confession by the defendant Eul, and the above facts may be acknowledged in full view of the entries of the evidence No. 1 and the purport of all

However, as to Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants requested temporary repayment prior to the filing of the lawsuit is deemed to have been led by Defendant B. However, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff did not specify the time when the return of the loan was given to the Defendants, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff’s assertion against

Therefore, only through the delivery of a copy of the complaint, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have notified the Defendants of the return of each of the loans in this case.

Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to the highest defense stipulated in Article 603(2) of the Civil Code, which is the Supreme Court Decision 63Da131 delivered on May 9, 1963.