1. Defendant C’s KRW 74.5 million and its relation to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to January 3, 2017.

1. Claim against Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Defendants asserted 1) on September 29, 2012, as married couple, the Plaintiff’s mother D (Death on February 21, 2016, and hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) The agreement to jointly and severally pay 83 million won or more in total each month by December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) shall be jointly and severally agreed to pay 1 million won or more by December 31, 2015.

(2) However, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to pay the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 74.5 million - KRW 83 million - 8.5 million) and its delay damages, as the Defendants paid only KRW 83 million to the Deceased.

B. Judgment 1) The Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 as evidence of this case’s agreement (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

(2) Defendant B, who is the wife of this document, asserts that Defendant C voluntarily prepares it using his own seal. On the other hand, if the signature affixed on a private document is reproduced by his own seal, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the act of sealing is based on the will of the holder of the title to prepare it. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be established by the holder of the title to the document, then the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established by the holder of the title to the document, it is presumed that the authenticity of the seal is established by the holder of the title to the document, i.e., the act of sealing the seal is based on the will of the holder of the title to the document. Thus, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal is broken if the person who disputes the authenticity of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122 delivered on February 11, 2003). According to the above legal principle 3, the health care unit and evidence No. 2 were written in this case.