1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,500,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 31, 2010 to the date of full payment.

1. The following conciliation was concluded on December 10, 2010 in the case of loans extended by the Incheon District Court 2010Kadan95283, a prior suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

(1) The Defendants jointly and severally paid KRW 73,50,000 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 201, and each of the 6,125,000 as of the end of each month from December 31, 2010 to November 30, 201.

2. If the Defendants delay each of the above payment dates at least ten (10) days, they shall lose the benefit of time, and shall immediately pay the remaining principal and interest as well as damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the date of loss of benefit of time to the day of full payment.

3. By December 17, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall revoke each complaint against Defendant C against Defendant C, and each complaint against Defendant B regarding D injury case at the Incheon Western Police Station, which Defendant B filed against the Plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

5. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne respectively;

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,500,000 under the prior mediation protocol of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 31, 2010 to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant C’s assertion and judgment alleged that Defendant C repaid to the Plaintiff money equivalent to KRW 75,00,000,000. However, Defendant C’s assertion appears to have been that Defendant C paid money equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff prior to the preparation of the prior protocol, and the above Defendant did not dispute that the Plaintiff did not perform its obligation under the prior protocol. Even if Defendant C’s assertion, the above Defendant’s claim is based on the prior protocol.