1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiffs’ claim for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation of loans against the Defendant on November 12, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the Defendant’s loan of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiffs on April 16, 2012 and KRW 5 million to Plaintiff B and D on November 12, 2012, the decision of recommending settlement was finalized on February 24, 2015, with the following content.

1.(a)

The plaintiffs shall be jointly and severally paid KRW 20 million to the defendant, and five million won shall be paid until January 31, 2015, five million won shall be paid until March 31, 2015, five million won shall be until March 31, 2015, five million won shall be paid until May 31, 2015, and five million won shall be paid until July 31, 2015.

B. Plaintiff B and D shall jointly and severally pay 4 million won to the Defendant until March 31, 2015.

If the plaintiffs and D fail to pay the above amount by the above payment date, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of each payment to the day of full payment shall be paid.

B. The defendant's decision to recommend the above reconciliation 1B

On July 16, 2015, D received a decision to commence compulsory auction on the real estate owned by D for the realization of the claim stated in the paragraph, D repaid KRW 5 million to the Defendant.

C. The details repaid by the plaintiffs after the decision to recommend reconciliation and the principal and interest remaining after the result of the repayment are as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 5, 7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The interest of confirmation is examined ex officio;

Considering both the principal and interest repaid prior to the ruling on recommending a compromise, the Plaintiffs deemed that there was no obligation pursuant to the ruling on recommending a compromise. However, the Plaintiffs seem to have filed the instant lawsuit to resolve the disputes arising in regard to the existence of the obligation itself, such as the Defendant’s enforcement

In light of this, it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiffs' filing of a lawsuit is aimed at excluding the executory power of the decision of recommending reconciliation, and it is difficult to obtain judgment on the existence and scope of the debt.