1. The Defendants each amounting to KRW 251,392,740 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and KRW 5% per annum from May 5, 2012 to November 20, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around February 8, 2010, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) concluded a contract for construction works with a contractor and a contractor from Taesung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Taesung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do), for construction works on two lots of land (hereinafter “instant construction works”) including 5.74 billion won in contract amount, and construction period from February 20, 2010 to March 30, 201.

B. D, after the process of partial operations, such as earth gate construction, file construction, reinforced concrete construction, etc., D intended to settle the cost of performing the instant construction and the instant construction work cost of KRW 1.39 billion on July 26, 2010 due to the shortage of funds from the ordering office, at KRW 1.39 billion (i.e., other construction period: February 8, 2010 to July 26, 2010) and agreed to pay the said settlement amount after the month.

C. On December 4, 2010, Taesung Construction entered into a transfer agreement with the Defendants on December 4, 2010 with respect to the approval of the instant construction project and the right to permit construction to transfer to the Defendants at KRW 200 million (a separate balance of design cost). At that time, the Defendants agreed to succeed to the entire construction cost obligations for Taesung Construction’s construction project for Taesung Construction that occurred at that time. At that time, the Defendants filed an application for the approval of the change with respect to the said construction project operator and obtained the approval of the change in the housing construction project plan from Jinjin-gun, 201.

On June 7, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) rendered a provisional attachment order as to the amount up to the above claim amount among the instant construction price claim against the Defendants, the obligor D, a third-party obligor; and (b) received a provisional attachment order as to the said claim amount; and (c) around that time the original copy was served on the Defendants, respectively.

E. Based on the original sentence of provisional execution in the case of the claim for return of loans (No. 2011Gahap24777) against D, the Plaintiff is based on the original sentence of provisional execution, and on February 2, 2012, the amount claimed by the above court No. 2012T465, Feb. 2, 2012.