1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 27, 2013, D agreed to receive KRW 270,00,000 from the Defendants, instead of cancelling the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendants’ name under the judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 201Na10695) on the instant officetels, with respect to the mutual dispute on the ownership of the Songpa-gu Officetel building (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

B. With respect to the payment of KRW 15,00,000 out of the above agreed amount, the Defendants, as designated by D on October 1, 2013, prepared and delivered a promissory note as indicated in the issuer, the Defendants, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 15,000,000, and the due date on December 31, 2013, the place of payment and the place of payment, Seoul, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, the joint issuer of the Promissory Notes, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,00,000,000 and damages for delay from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the Promissory Notes for the period from January 1, 2014, the following day of the payment of the Promissory Notes, to the delivery of the copy of the Promissory Notes. 2) The Plaintiff is liable to seek damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act,

The liability for delay for the obligations of the Promissory Notes arises only when a lawful presentation of payment is made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da94797 Decided April 8, 2010). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, had caused a delay in the performance by making a lawful payment to the Defendants.

The claim for damages incurred prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case shall not be accepted.

B. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion 1 regarding the instant officetel 201 shall be made to the Plaintiff.