1. Defendant B, C, and D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 400,000,000,000 and the aforementioned amount from September 17, 2008 to December 12, 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as the wife of Defendant C, remitted each of the KRW 100 million on December 6, 2007 and KRW 200 million on December 27, 2007 to the bank account in the name of Defendant E, and paid KRW 100 million to Defendant C on January 14, 2008.

B. Defendant B’s total amount of KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff on August 18, 2008

9. The Defendant C and D agreed to pay up to 16. In this context, the said payment was jointly and severally guaranteed.

[Based on the recognition] Defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C, D, and E, evidence No. 1-3, evidence No. 2-1 through 3, evidence No. 2-1 through 3, and evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as a whole.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the claims against Defendant B, C, and D, Defendant C and D, as joint and several surety, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 400 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from September 17, 2008, which is the day following the payment due date, to December 12, 2009, on which the copy of the complaint of this case was finally served to the said Defendants, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E

A. On August 10, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant E also guaranteed payment of KRW 400 million for the above loan, and that Defendant E is obligated to pay it as a guarantor. As to the case on which Defendant C et al. filed a fraudulent complaint, Defendant E stated his intention to guarantee the above loan on condition that the prosecution investigation of Defendant C et al. was delayed until November 30, 2009, but the Plaintiff rejected it, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for the guarantee.

While Defendant E was the first condition to suspend the due date, it was changed to the effect that it was a condition to suspend the prosecution investigation later, but the latter's assertion is excluded.