1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch C.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the claim against Defendant A is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth below to the Plaintiff’s argument at the trial. As such, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that even if the existence of the Promissory Notes’s joint and several liability obligation against Defendant A by issuing the Promissory Notes in this case with the meaning of lending money to Defendant A and jointly and severally sureties’s debt, even if it is acknowledged that Defendant A’s joint and several liability obligation exists, it cannot be deemed as a loan to Defendant A’s H, since the amount of KRW 30,000,000, which was transferred to the account of Defendant A on July 26, 201, without any financial transaction details, and KRW 150,000,000, which was transferred to the account of Defendant A on March 22, 2013, shall not be deemed as a loan to Defendant A’s H. Therefore, the amount of the joint and several liability obligation against Defendant A ought to be determined with the exception of each of the above amounts as KRW 170,50,00,000, excluding

B. We examine the following facts: (a) the Promissory Notes in this case cannot be deemed to have been issued falsely in collusion between Defendant A and E; (b) there may be lending money through cash transactions between Defendant A and H; and (c) M Co., Ltd. is a company in which H actually operates and E is registered as a representative director; and (d) it cannot be deemed that H is the primary debtor and E is the joint guarantor to pay the amount remitted to the account in its name as the principal debtor; and (c) there is no details of financial transactions on part of the loan.

Even if the holder of a deposit account is M Co., Ltd., as long as E issues the said promissory note with the genuine intent of joint and several sureties, Defendant A is indicated on the said promissory note against E.