1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 100,000,000 and the same from March 22, 201 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon receiving a request from Defendant C to lend business funds of KRW 100 million, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the maturity of one year or less and with the interest rate of 24% per annum (hereinafter “the first loan agreement of this case”) and remitted KRW 16 million per month as of April 16, 201 and KRW 86 million per month to Defendant B, who is the wife of Defendant C.

B. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff received 800 shares of common shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) from Defendant B, which were issued with respect to the shares of 800 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) from Defendant B, and was issued a share acquisition agreement (Evidence A2) signed by Defendant C as the guarantor to the effect that “If the transferor sells the shares of 800 shares at KRW 100 million to the transferee within one year, but if the transferee pays KRW 124 million to the assignee within one year, the transferee will sell the shares again to the transferor.”

C. The Plaintiff received interest of KRW 2 million each month from Defendant C by January 201, and received KRW 3 million around August 2013.

Around May 2010, according to Defendant C’s request for additional loan, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “the second loan agreement”) with the interest rate of 7.2% per annum on September 17, 201, and remitted KRW 50 million to Defendant B’s account in the first order. From February 17, 2011, the Plaintiff received interest KRW 300,000 per month from Defendant C for nine months until February 17, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Defendants’ assertion of the violation of their jurisdiction and the determination thereof are defenses to the effect that the instant lawsuit was filed with the Seoul Eastern District Court, which was not the Seoul Eastern District Court, for the legal ground for the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case’s general forum.

In the case of filing a lawsuit concerning the property right, there is a jurisdiction over the court of the place of obligation performance (Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the performance of obligations other than the delivery of a specific object shall be made at the present address of the creditor.