1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From the time of 195, the Plaintiff, who had engaged in the printing business, had been commissioned by Defendant B to produce 50 million won or more from Defendant B’s household spathy and film work and provided it to Defendant B around that time.

B. The Defendants, around 1995, are jointly and severally liable by the Defendants.

I prepared a letter of payment stating that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff the price for the production and film work of the household spambling (hereinafter “the price for the instant goods”).

[Ground for Recognition] - Defendant B: A without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings - Defendant C: Decision by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 for the goods and delay damages therefor.

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. Defendant B alleged to the effect that Defendant B paid all the price of the instant goods on or around May 2008, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of Defendant B’s allegation is without merit.

B. As to the claim for extinctive prescription, the extinctive prescription of five years under the Commercial Act shall apply to the instant claim for the price of goods as a commercial claim.

However, in light of the following circumstances that are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the paper numbers), the instant lawsuit was filed after five years have passed since the time when the distribution schedule became final and conclusive under the discretionary auction procedure (Li-gu District Court E) on the real estate owned by the Defendant C, which the Plaintiff asserted after the due date, and the instant claim for the price of goods was already extinguished before the filing of the instant lawsuit.