1. Defendant B and D shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 1,140,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from January 1, 2009 to February 22, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) is a company established for the purpose of construction business, etc., Defendant D is a person who actually runs the Defendant Company; Defendant C is a wife of Defendant D and a representative director of the Defendant Company; Defendant E is a child of Defendant D and C.

B. Around the end of 2009, including the drawing up of the loan certificate of this case, the following (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was written in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the “10% per annum” was modified to “10% per annum” and omitted entry of the address and resident registration number.

The interest on the loan from A on January 1, 2009 shall be 10% per annum on the principal amount: A debtor: D (person) debtor: debtor; E (person) debtor: F Defendant D and ASEAN

(c) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. From February 1, 2006 to May 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion made loans of KRW 2,544,30,000 to the Defendant Company, and received reimbursement of KRW 1,353,42,80 out of the above loans from August 16, 2006 to September 11, 2008.

The Plaintiff, around the end of 2009, lent KRW 1,140,000,000 to interest rate of 10% per annum with respect to the above loans between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant novation agreement”), and “the obligation of the Defendant Company constituted by the said novation agreement” is “the obligation of this case.

B signed the loan certificate of this case and signed it, and Defendant C, D, and E signed and sealed the above loan certificate with the intent to jointly and severally bear the debt of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,140,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The purport of the claim by Defendant C, D, and E is that the instant loan certificate was actually operated by the Defendant Company.