1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 1.6 billion and the Defendants B from May 1, 2012 to August 26, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on July 19, 201.

(2) Defendant B, the representative director of the company, lent KRW 1.79 billion to Defendant B, and entered into a monetary loan contract with KRW 1190 million to be paid up to November 10, 201, and KRW 600 million to be paid up to January 30, 2012, and Defendant C guaranteed the above loan debt. Defendant C guaranteed the above loan debt. (2) The Defendant Company paid KRW 1.6 billion to the Plaintiff on July 19, 201, on the grounds that the amount of KRW 1.6 billion was paid to the Plaintiff on July 19, 201, but the said amount was newly constructed in Gwangju Mine E and F’s urban residential housing and paid in cash by April 30, 2012 if it is impossible to pay in kind as above.

Defendant B and C have jointly and severally guaranteed the above contract deposit obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendants asserted that G had made each of the above agreements by lending the Plaintiff’s name. However, the testimony of the witness G and the results of the Plaintiff’s questioning by the Plaintiff Party alone are insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding and there is no other counter-proof.

2. Determination as to loan claims

A. According to the facts set forth in paragraph 1-A(1), Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1.79 billion and damages for delay. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant B transferred 1,740,800 shares of the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff on January 30, 2012 in lieu of the repayment of the said borrowed loan, and thus, the said borrowed loan obligation is deemed extinguished (the Plaintiff, in order to take effect of the extinguishment of the obligation by payment in kind, the other benefits in lieu of the original performance should be realized, and in case the payment in kind is the assignment of the obligation, the obligation extinguishment should be equipped even if the requirements for setting up the assignment of the claim are satisfied.