1. Defendant B and C jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from August 21, 2015.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the arguments in the judgment on the claims against Defendant B and C, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have lent KRW 50 million to Defendant B on October 1, 2014 under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant C, the due date for payment until October 31, 2014, without setting interest.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and delay damages calculated by adding 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from August 21, 2015 to the service date of the copy of the complaint in this case (Defendant B and Defendant C, January 27, 2016, and January 29, 2016), as the Plaintiff seeks, from August 21, 2015 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case (Defendant B, January 27, 2016, and January 29, 2016).

As to this, Defendant B and C already prepared to the Plaintiff an executory notarial deed with respect to the above borrowed money, the Plaintiff, who holds a separate title of execution, asserts that the Plaintiff cannot bring a lawsuit for the performance of performance again. However, even if the obligee has secured an executory notarial deed, the obligee may bring a lawsuit for performance to obtain a judgment that has res judicata effect prior to the completion of the claim’s final satisfaction. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

In addition, Defendant B and C alleged that while promoting real estate development business with the above Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 4 billion from the above Defendants, and that the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for large damages as above constitutes abuse of rights to claim the instant loan against the above Defendants. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered such damages from the above Defendants, the above part of the allegation is not acceptable.

In full view of the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the arguments in the judgment as to the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act against Defendant D, Defendant B is listed in the attached Table No. 1 of October 14, 2014.