1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 and Defendant B from February 21, 2013 to September 22, 2014.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff made a joint performance agreement with Defendant B to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff not later than February 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”). If the Plaintiff invested KRW 75 million to Defendant B as funds necessary for the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the business right for the lease, sale, and operation of shopping mall in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business right”), Defendant B shall pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff within three months from the date of payment of the said investment loan, and even if Defendant B fails to acquire the instant business right, the Plaintiff made an investment agreement to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff by the date of conclusion of the instant investment agreement (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”). However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant B prior to the date of conclusion of the instant investment agreement, provided that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff or that the Plaintiff did not have any special intent to pay KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff as a whole.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the instant investment agreement was concluded by intimidation against the Defendant B, stating that “The Plaintiff’s insolvency and credit status on the part of the owner of the said shopping mall cannot be promoted any more, and that the said owner’s workplace would exercise legal measures or pressure against the said owner’s workplace.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the said assertion is without merit. 2) Next, Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff did not comply with the confidentiality on the acquisition of the instant business right and caused interference with the acquisition of the instant business right by presenting a written answer as if the Plaintiff had already acquired the instant business right. However, it can be recognized.