1. The Defendant shall calculate the amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff at the rate of 30% per annum from September 14, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant’s father C was liable to the Plaintiff. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note, the par value of KRW 500 million, and the due date of December 4, 2012. On November 27, 2012, a notarial deed was also drawn up to the effect that compulsory execution is recognized for the said promissory note. (ii) On December 27, 2012, immediately after the due date for the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was set at KRW 100 million, the interest rate of KRW 50 million, the due date of repayment of the loan as of January 31, 2013 (the Defendant’s mother D was jointly and severally guaranteed), D was set at KRW 100 million, the interest rate of KRW 50 million, and the due date of repayment as of January 31, 2013, and each of the Defendant’s joint and several sureties was actually paid to the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D on the basis of the monetary loan certificate, a joint and several surety, against D based on the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Da26096, Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kadan26096. On October 12, 2015, D and C have written a written confirmation that the Plaintiff recognized all the allegations and faithfully performed the obligation as to the instant case. [Recognition grounds] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 1 (money car certificate, the Defendant’s signature and seal), and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, as there is

At the time of the preparation and delivery of this document, the defendant did not appear to have any remainder other than the debtor, joint guarantor, and amount, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff supplemented it without authority.

Gap evidence Nos. 9, 13, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant and D have prepared each monetary bond in the purport that they will jointly and severally assume the obligation of C against the plaintiff, and that they will jointly and severally assume the obligation of C. Thus, the defendant is from the plaintiff.