1. The Defendants jointly joined the Plaintiff with KRW 30 million and 6% per annum from September 20, 2012 to December 17, 2012.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Defendants issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 300 million and maturity of September 20, 2012 to the Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 300 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from September 20, 2012 to December 17, 2012, which is clearly indicated that it is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from September 20, 2012, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the

On August 2012, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”)’s assertion by deceptioning the Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion requested a financial institution to grant a loan of KRW 21 billion to the Gangnam-gu Seoul E building (hereinafter “instant building”) in order to obtain a loan of KRW 21 billion. In addition, it became necessary to pay a loan of KRW 2 billion with funds for resolution, such as the relationship of debt related to the instant building.

Defendant D, the representative director F of Defendant Company F, was introduced, on behalf of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff, who operates the H Company through G, to obtain a loan of the above KRW 2 billion.

However, the Plaintiff intended to provide Defendant D with loans of KRW 2 billion and KRW 21 billion, and to provide loans of KRW 21 billion in the name of the Defendant Company, and if the Plaintiff deposits a term deposit of KRW 21 billion in the name of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff will issue certificates of deposit or certificates of loan in financial institutions.

Accordingly, the plaintiff extended 21 billion won to the non-party company with the above certificate and with the permission of the principle of financing, and the non-party company arranged all the rights relationship of the building of this case with the above money, and the non-party company received 21 billion won loans from financial institutions as security and repaid to the plaintiff.