1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant B’s KRW 70,100,000 and as to the Plaintiff, February 2, 2016.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The following facts may be acknowledged by the parties to the determination as to the cause of the claim, either in dispute between them, or in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence A 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff, Inc., Ltd., D (hereinafter “D”)

(2) Defendant B, a director of D, made a letter to the effect that, on March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff would jointly and severally with the E, F, G, and D until April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff would pay KRW 115,00,000 to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff did not recover the above loans from E.

On April 10, 2013, Defendant B and E, F, G, and D have drafted a re-written agreement to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 115,00,000 to the Plaintiff by April 24, 2013.

According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 70,100,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 44,90,000 from the agreed amount of KRW 115,00,000, which the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable, from the remainder of KRW 115,000,000, and damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the due date under the agreement to the day of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, as requested by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that, in addition to the amount of the Plaintiff’s person who received reimbursement, E, who is jointly and severally liable, paid the amount of KRW 3,00,000,000 on May 3, 2013, and the amount of KRW 35,00,000 on May 7, 2013, the Defendant additionally paid the amount of KRW 35,00,00

According to Eul evidence 4-2, the fact that the sum total of KRW 30,000,000,000 has been remitted from D accounts to H’s national bank account under the name of H is recognized.

The above defendant may, upon the plaintiff's request, evaluate the repayment to the plaintiff, because the remittance was made to the H account, which is a child of G, to the H account. However, the statement of Eul evidence 8 alone is asserted to the H account upon the plaintiff's request.