1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s KRW 70,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from August 27, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and the following:

1. The facts such as the statement in the attached Form of the claim as to the claim against the defendant B are considered to have been led by the defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million and the damages for delay as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D

A. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that the extinctive prescription expires unless the victim exercises his/her right to claim damages and the perpetrator for the tort for three years from the date on which he/she became aware of the legal representative of the damage and the perpetrator. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if it is acknowledged that Defendant C and D jointly committed a tort with Defendant B, the Plaintiff was aware of the tort committed by Defendant C and D at least on December 3, 2009, when he/she did not be appointed to the F High School after giving money to Defendant B, and the lawsuit in this case was filed on August 3, 2015, which was more than three years thereafter, and the extinctive prescription expired.2) Since the Plaintiff’s determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the date on which the damages and the date on which the perpetrator knew of the short-term extinctive prescription period, which was the date on which the damage occurred, the existence of an unlawful harmful act, and the occurrence and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the damage, the Defendants asserted that the damage was actually and concretely definite.

(b).