1. Defendant A’s agricultural partnership and B’s joint and several liability for KRW 27,628,750 to the Plaintiff and KRW 25,512,960 to the Plaintiff.

The facts described in the attached Form 1 (1) as the cause of the claim against Defendant A Agricultural Partnership or B do not conflict between the parties, or it is recognized in view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6.

Therefore, Defendant A farming association corporation (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and B are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,628,750 of the amount of indemnity and KRW 25,512,960 of the amount of indemnity from October 19, 2018, which is the day after the Plaintiff’s performance of guaranteed liability, a copy of the complaint of this case from October 19, 2018 (for Defendant A farming association corporation, January 2, 2019; for Defendant B, January 22, 2019) to the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is served (for Defendant A farming association corporation, January 2, 2019; for Defendant B, January 22, 2019), 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to May 31, 2019; and for delay damages

Claim against Defendant C, D, and E

A. The cause of the claim: Paragraph 2 of the Attached Form (1) is as the cause of the claim.

B. Provisions of applicable Acts: Judgment by deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) [Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act] [Defendant A and Defendant B seek revocation and restitution of fraudulent act against Defendant C, D, and E only against Defendant C, D, and E, on the ground that each mortgage agreement entered into with Defendant C, D, and E was concluded to borrow funds from the above Defendants or to secure the above Defendants’ credit payment claims. However, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the eligibility for the defendant is against the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da72394, Jan. 15, 2009).

As long as Defendant C Co., Ltd., D, and E were not present on the date of pleading of this case and thus deemed to have led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the allegation by Defendant A and B regarding the claim for revocation of fraudulent act shall be