1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 35,000,000 with the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 1, 2012 to May 8, 2015.

1. In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments as to the cause of the claim No. 1 and No. 3 (each dispute over the Defendants’ seal imprints, which is presumed to be the establishment of the entire document’s authenticity. Defendant B, a spouse of the Defendant B and the actual inspection agent of the Defendant C, have affixed his seal without permission, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), the Plaintiff supplied C with a stock company around August 201, and did not receive KRW 120 million among them. Defendant B, on August 6, 2012, agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff until August 31, 2012. Defendant B, a spouse of the Plaintiff and the actual inspection agent of the Co., Ltd, guaranteed the payment of the above agreed amount on the same day.

According to the above facts, Defendant B, the principal obligor of the above agreement, and Defendant A, the guarantor, have a duty to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from September 1, 2012, which is the date following the due date of payment, to May 8, 2015, which is the date of the decision in this case, to the date of the decision in this case, for the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the remaining agreed amount of KRW 35 million after deducting the amount of KRW 85 million paid to the Plaintiff.

2. The above defendant's assertion as to the defendant A's assertion: the defendant sold the land owned by the plaintiff's own property to a third party; the plaintiff promised to cancel the above provisional seizure when the plaintiff was paid as a substitute deposit of KRW 100 million on behalf of the above defendant; however, the plaintiff voluntarily received KRW 85 million and cancelled the provisional seizure without permission, and the above defendant suffered damages; however, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are justified.