1. Defendant B’s KRW 35,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 1, 2017 to March 29, 2018.

1. Part of the claim against the defendant B

(a) the part corresponding to Defendant B among the grounds for the attachment of the claim to indicate the claim;

(b) Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act:

2. As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff asserted that “Defendant C is liable for joint and several liability with Defendant B as to the return of the balance of the Plaintiff’s investment deposit amount of KRW 35 million, since it is the husband of Defendant B, who agreed to return the profits from stock investment and the principal to the Plaintiff, who deposited KRW 40 million in the financial investment securities account under the name of Defendant C from the Plaintiff on March 28, 2017, who directly invested in shares through his own account, or a nominal lender who lent the name of the Defendant B to make an investment.”

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., ① the plaintiff's own knowledge of the defendant Eul's "D" in around 2016 and transferred the investment money to the defendant Eul's account designated by the defendant Eul pursuant to the defendant Eul's investment solicitation and the principal guarantee promise, and thus, the defendant Eul also claims the return of the investment money. ② The plaintiff seems to have been able to exchange the defendant Eul with or had not consulted with the defendant Eul in entering into such investment agreement or transfer of the investment money. ③ The plaintiff demanded the return of the investment money only to the defendant Eul in the absence of proper implementation of the investment agreement, and accordingly, the plaintiff paid the "35 million won" from the defendant Eul in seven installments each by five million won.

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff received text messages, and it appears that the Plaintiff did not demand the Defendant C to return the investment amount or obtained the recognition of the responsibility to return the investment amount from the Defendant C, and that the Plaintiff only filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant B as a crime of fraud, but did not file a criminal complaint against the Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s solicitation for investment.