1. Defendants B and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from April 27, 2010 to the date of full payment.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B and C

A. On December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff was issued, delivered, and delivered, on December 23, 2009, a certificate of borrowing from Defendant B, KRW 200,000,00, the debtor, Defendant B, interest monthly, and the due date of payment as of February 16, 2010 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”).

At the time of drawing up the loan certificate of this case, Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff by Defendant C.

Therefore, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and damages for delay.

(b) Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant provisions as private capital);

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant MMtech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "MMtech").

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was requested by Defendant B to lend funds to conclude a M&A contract with Defendant M&C, and was issued and delivered the instant loan certificate while lending money to Defendant B.

At the time of the completion of the loan of this case, Defendant B delegated the authority to conclude a joint and several surety contract with Defendant B with respect to the debt borrowed from Defendant B to the Plaintiff, and entered into a joint and several surety contract on behalf of Defendant MIMC in the name of Defendant U.S.C.

Therefore, as joint and several suretiess are joint and several sureties, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The fact that Defendant M&C did not directly sign on the joint and several guarantee column of the loan certificate of this case is without dispute between the parties. In such a case, the Plaintiff, who was the document, is liable to prove that the above signing act was based on the legitimate title delegated by Defendant M&C.

The above signing act is legitimate on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant B had a M&A contract between Defendant B and Defendant M&C.