1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 20,000,000 and each year from October 1, 2013 to July 14, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, via Defendant D, lent the sum of KRW 60 million to Defendant B as follows, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s obligations.

Interest on the due date of repayment (interest on delay) on May 15, 2009 (20,000 on August 30, 2013) 24% per annum 20% per annum (5,000,000 per annum) on August 30, 2013 (24% per annum 30%) on July 18, 2010 on July 18, 2010 (24% per annum 30%) 24% per annum 24% per annum (30%) on August 30, 2012 on December 15, 15, 200,000, and 24% per annum 30%) on September 30, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff loaned 26 million won to Defendant C in total as follows, and Defendant D guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation.

Interest on the due date for repayment of the loan amount on March 10, 2009 8,000,000 on October 30, 2013: 24% per annum 25,000,000 August 25, 2013; 24% per annum 24% per annum 25, 2000,000 March 17, 2014; 24% per annum 24% per annum 30,000,000 on March 17, 2014; 24% per annum 30,000 on July 30, 2014; 24% per annum 24% per annum 24, 200 on December 24, 2014; and

2) Each entry and the purport of the entire pleadings (Defendant D’s service by public notice)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 60 million and its delay damages, barring any special circumstance. Defendant C and D are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 26 million and its delay damages.

B. Defendant B and C asserts that each of the above money was returned to Defendant B and C, or that it was not the money that Defendant D donated to Defendant B and C, but the money that the Plaintiff lent to Defendant B and C, and that each of the instant loan certificates and promissory notes, etc. was merely a false amount by Defendant B and C’s coercion or deception.

However, insofar as a promissory note, power of attorney, loan certificate, etc. as stated in Gap's Nos. 1 through 4, and 6 are deemed to be genuine as a disposal document, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein.