1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,456,127 and KRW 90,358,095 among them.

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Application of statutes;

A. As to Defendant C: Judgment by deeming the confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) (the Defendant is served with the original copy of the initial payment order, and the vehicle is scheduled to be sold through a written objection and written response, and the amount of the claim should be changed depending on the amount of appropriation thereafter. As the Plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim according to the sale and appropriation of the vehicle after the Defendant’s reply, it is deemed that the confession was made on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim that was reduced without having been present on the date for pleading

B. As to Defendant D: A judgment based on a confession (Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Defendant is served with the original copy of the initial payment order, and the vehicle is scheduled to be sold through a written objection and a written response, and thus, the amount of the claim should be changed depending on the subsequent appropriation. The Plaintiff’s claim was no longer disputed against the reduced Plaintiff’s claim as a result of reducing the amount of the claim due to the sale and purchase price of the vehicle after the Defendant’s written response, and

C. Defendant E: A written objection and reply against the payment order was submitted under the joint signature of three Defendants by public notice, but the original of the payment order was not served on Defendant E (the same shall apply to Defendant D’s statement). As such, the written objection and reply submitted under the joint signature of the Defendants cannot be deemed as having been legally served on Defendant E.

(Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)