1. The Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff in relation to KRW 52,053,698 and KRW 30,000,000 among them, Defendant B, from August 5, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 12, 2012, Defendant B as a borrower, Defendant C and D, as each of the guarantors, prepared the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificates”).

30,000,000 won as stated above shall be borrowed on a fixed basis and the repayment period shall be by September 30, 2012. If the repayment is not made by September 30, 2012, the interest rate of 24% per annum shall be added thereto.

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant B drafted an agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”) at the time of the preparation of the instant loan certificate.

Article 4 of the Terms and Conditions of Commercial Building Agreement - The total revenue shall be allocated in proportion to 5:5 in proportion to the profits other than expenditure.

- Plaintiff 50% - Defendant B 50% fees (payment method) - 1.5%, excluding 2.5% of the employee fees, out of total 4% fees, shall be paid to Defendant B as well as apportioned by Article 4.

- The management of passbooks in the name of the defendant B shall be the plaintiff, and the proceeds shall be allocated to the passbook designated by the defendant B.

Article 6 Other - The amount of KRW 30,000,000 shall be recovered from Defendant B’s proceeds by the time when they reach 30,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the content of the instant loan certificate, which is a disposal document, and the fact that KRW 30,00,000,000, in the instant agreement, is indicated as the loan amount, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000 to the Defendant B on July 12, 2012, and Defendant C and D guaranteed the above loan obligation.

B. On this issue, the Defendants asserted that the above KRW 30,000,000 is not a loan, but a loan, and that the Plaintiff and Defendant B used for the partnership business (employee case expenses).

However, it can not be said that the same trade agreement (A evidence 6) as shown in the defendants' arguments is not genuine because there is no signature or seal of the originator.