1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A’s KRW 215,175,470 and KRW 168,00,00 among them:

B. Defendant C shall be KRW 152,735,780.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds of the claim Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the Plaintiff, as the principal obligor, executed a general loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the Defendants as indicated in the following table, and the remaining principal and interest as of January 22, 2014 are as follows.

Defendant 2: (i) the interest rate of 0.30 on January 22, 2014 and interest rate of 0.30 on April 16, 2012; (ii) 168,00,00; 475, B 470 on April 30, 2010; and (iii) the principal and interest rate of 0.30,630,40,630,630,40,405 of the principal and interest rate of 0.30,50,630,40,405, and 70,50,405, and 70,40,405, and 70,630,40,405, and 70,50,000,000, 130,000,735, 205, 201, respectively; (iii)

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The gist of the argument is that E is not the Defendants but the actual party to the loan agreement of this case, and E is deceiving the Defendants and let them enter into the loan agreement of this case with E, and the Plaintiff’s employees also conspired with E. Even if the parties to the loan agreement of this case were the Defendants, the Plaintiff only carried out the Defendants as a formal debtor at the time, but actually carried out the loan with the Defendants as the primary debtor without the intent to actually lend the Defendants and to bear the obligations. Thus, the loan agreement of this case is null and void as a false representation based on the

B. Legal doctrine.