1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 318,077,461 and KRW 236,326,847 among them, Defendant A from September 19, 2014.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the facts identical to the entries in the grounds for the claim in the separate sheet may be recognized [the defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant A Co.

(1) On September 19, 2014, the record clearly stating that the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order for Defendant B and C is the delivery date of the instant payment order for Defendant B and the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order for Defendant B and November 19, 2014, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 318,07,461 and KRW 236,326,847, as the Plaintiff seeks, and as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay within the limit of KRW 60 million, calculated on September 19, 2014, by the rate of delay interest per annum 12% per annum from October 19, 2014 and from the following day to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant C was listed in the form of representative director of the Defendant Company upon D’s request, which was the internal director of the Defendant Company, and thereafter D demanded B to sign and affix a seal with a collateral guarantee for joint and several surety of the loan obligation of this case against the Plaintiff of the Defendant Company, which was aware that it was a document necessary for the change of representative director, and that it was merely aware that it was a document necessary for the change of representative director, and thus, it did not have a duty to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim of this case. However, it does not constitute a legal ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim, and even if it was intended to claim the cancellation of the declaration of intention due to mistake or fraud, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above fact of claim, and the above Defendant’s mistake is due to his own gross negligence.