1. Defendant A shall pay 486,400,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 28, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. On February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff indicated the claim 1) C religious organization D (hereinafter “D”) on February 27, 2009

2) From the perspective of the People’s Republic of Korea, the Korea Communications Commission (hereinafter “instant construction”) established the access road to the warehouse and the drainage of the E-Japan (hereinafter “instant construction”).

351,400,000 won (including value added tax) for the construction cost;

(2) The Plaintiff extended a total of KRW 225,00,000 to D from June 1, 2007 to March 9, 2009, and paid a total of KRW 90,000 from D from December 28, 2007 to February 8, 2009 and paid a total of KRW 135,00,000 to D (=25,000,000,000 - KRW 90,000).

3) Defendant A, the actual representative of D, jointly and severally guaranteed the above construction cost and the loan obligation against the Plaintiff. 4) Accordingly, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above construction cost of KRW 351,400,000 and the above loan amount of KRW 135,00,000, including the above loan amount of KRW 486,40,000 and the delay damages thereon.

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2, Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Incorporated Foundation B

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant A, the actual representative of Defendant B and Defendant Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), on behalf of the Defendant B, shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 400,000,000, out of the construction cost incurred in relation to the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant agreement”; and the letter of commitment (Evidence A No. 4) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence, states that the other party to whom the payment of the said agreement is to be made is a postal construction company, which is not the Plaintiff, but the other party to whom the said agreement is to be made, and the Plaintiff asserts that the said letter of commitment was erroneously written in error in preparing the said letter of commitment. Accordingly, Defendant B and each of the Plaintiff as Defendant A and the Plaintiff.