1. Defendant A and D shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 30,000,000 for the Plaintiff, and as from May 26, 2009, for Defendant A.

1. Determination as to each claim against Defendant A and D

A. On March 26, 2009, the Plaintiff (AF Co., Ltd. before the alteration) lent 30,000,000 won for project promotion expenses to Defendant A (the representative of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Projects in Zone E in its form and the chairman of the Promotion Committee for the Provisional Promotion of the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Projects; hereinafter “instant Committee”) under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant D. However, if Defendant A is not elected as the promotion chairperson by May 26, 2009 by the General Assembly of Cooperatives until May 25, 2009, he paid the above loans by 1% until May 25, 2009; and 2.5% (30% per annum x 2.5% per annum x 12 months x 12 months) by adding interest under each ratio to the loans (Article 22 of the Special Agreement on the Services in Section A).

Shed Defendant A was not elected by the president of the Congress of Cooperatives since then.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant A: A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant D with the purport of the whole pleadings, which is the whole pleadings (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. According to the above facts of determination, the above Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, as the borrower and joint guarantor, from May 26, 2009; from July 1, 2012, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case to Defendant A; from Defendant D, until June 10, 2012, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case to Defendant D; and from June 10, 2012, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case to the Plaintiff

C. As to Defendant A’s assertion, Defendant A had been conducted on the premise that the Plaintiff was a legitimate management contractor for improvement projects under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents at the time, but the Plaintiff was an unregistered business entity.