1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 102,882,665, out of the amount of KRW 133,702,665, and the amount of KRW 102,882,665.

1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(Provided, the second part of the second part of the second part of the second part of the cause of the claim is “Defendant C”, and the fifth part of the fifth part and second part of the fifth part of the fifth part is deleted “137,327,332 won in interest on rent” and the second part of the fifth part of the fifth part is “13,702,665 won in interest on rent.”

Defendant B: Judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

(c) Defendant C: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

D. Some rejection parts against the Defendants: The Plaintiff calculated the initial date of the agreed delay damages on January 26, 2018 with respect to the amount unpaid to the said Defendants; however, according to the allegations or evidence, the initial date of the agreed delay damages on the unpaid alcoholic beverage amount shall be “the date of discontinuance of transaction”; however, it is confirmed that there was transaction by March 2, 2018. Thus, the initial date shall be March 3, 2018, which is the following day, and the part of the Plaintiff seeking delayed damages on the basis of the initial date of the agreement shall be dismissed.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that Defendant D guaranteed the remaining Defendants’ obligations under the above paragraph (1). Thus, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with the remaining Defendants to pay the said Paragraph (1) to the Plaintiff, and even if not, did not guarantee.

Even if several persons assume an obligation on account of an act which is a commercial activity, they are jointly and severally liable for reimbursement pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act which provides that “If they assume an obligation on one or all of them due to an act which is a commercial activity,

As to this, Defendant D did not provide a guarantee as alleged by the Plaintiff, and Defendant D did not have a duty to pay the amount sought by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff in that it was incurred after withdrawal from the partnership with the remaining Defendants.

B. (1) The Plaintiff is between Defendant C and Defendant D on November 29, 2011.