1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) The full payment of KRW 121,247,534 and KRW 52,258,434 among them shall be made from November 14, 2018.

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Judgment by deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) - Service on a legal entity shall be served by its representative. If there are many representatives of legal entities, service shall be sufficient when it is served only on one of them, regardless of whether it is a case of each representative or a case of a joint representative;

(Article 180 of the Civil Procedure Act) - In cases where the representative director C determines a joint representation of the company and makes a registration in the corporate registry and publicly announced, the procedural acts conducted on the part of the company shall not be effective, in principle, unless they

Since the response act is also an act of litigation to be jointly conducted by the joint representative director, only one of the joint representative directors is illegal and invalid.

The defendant is not present at the date of pleading without submitting a written response, and therefore, the facts underlying the claim pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Act shall be deemed to have been led to confession, and only the matters necessary to specify the claim pursuant to Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act

- A written objection against the payment order to the effect that D co-representative of the defendant was in office as the defendant's co-representative but did not know the fact of the cause of the claim. However, D currently is registered as the defendant's co-representative's corporate register, and D currently raises an objection to the payment order under D's name, and the defendant co-representative did not lawfully dispute the plaintiff's assertion by means of preparing, submitting, attending, etc. a written response under his co-representative's co-representative

- The defendant's joint representative D asserted that there was no objection against the payment order and there was no joint and several sureties against the plaintiff's debt against the defendant, but the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant is against the defendant as a juristic person.