1. Defendant C’s KRW 1,00,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2009 to February 22, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. Basic facts 1) The original trade name of Defendant B was D Co., Ltd., but the trade name was changed to E Co., Ltd. on October 11, 2007 and to B on March 30, 2009 (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(1) On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff, the largest shareholder and the representative director of the Defendant Company, transferred 2,04,004 shares and management rights of the Defendant Company’s registered common shares to Defendant C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, in KRW 6,132,012,00,000. The down payment of KRW 1,30,000,000,000, on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 4,832,012,00,000, each of which is paid on August 31, 2007 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) On July 24, 2007, before the date of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff transferred the Defendant Company’s registered common shares 2,044,004 shares to Defendant C subject to the transfer of the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. In accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, even though the Plaintiff transferred to Defendant C all shares 2,04,004 shares registered as common shares of the Defendant Company, the Defendant C did not pay the share acquisition price up to the date of December 31, 2008, which was deferred due to the due date. The Defendant C, who jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation to pay the share acquisition price (hereinafter “instant obligation”) to the Plaintiff under the instant contract, is liable to pay the Plaintiff a delay payment from January 1, 2009, which is part of the share acquisition price under the said contract.

C. 1) Determination No. 2 (this document is presumed to be identical with the seal impression of the defendant company based on the results of fact-finding conducted by the Minister of Court Administration, and since the seal impression which appears to be the same as the seal impression of the defendant company based on the results of fact-finding conducted by the Minister of Court Administration, the authenticity

Defendant.