1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 382,349,00 and the interest rate thereon from August 31, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The status of the party is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff is a woman living together with the Defendant B; (b) the Defendant C is a wife; and (c) the Defendant D is a husband of the Plaintiff, who died on April 22, 2018 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Deceased, at the request of the Defendant B, remitted total of KRW 247,720,000 on March 10, 2008 to Defendant B for four occasions, as indicated in the following table, at the request of the Defendant B, KRW 247,720,00 on March 14, 2008, the Deceased of KRW 36,90,000 on March 10, 2008, the deceased of KRW 100,820,00 on March 14, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as “amount of remittance of this case”). (c)

1) On August 28, 2009, the Defendants prepared a loan certificate stating that “the principal of KRW 400,000,000” will be repaid to the Deceased and the Plaintiff by September 30, 2009 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

(2) The “debtor” of the instant loan certificate means that the name of the Defendants was printed in the same word, and the seals affixed to each of the Defendants’ names are affixed thereto.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document as to the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case is the seal affixed by the name holder, barring special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the seal was affixed by the name holder, i.e., the signature affixed by the name holder, barring special circumstances. Once it is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the fact that the document was written without being contrary to the name holder’s intent or the name holder’s intent should be proved by the claimant actively, and the probative value of evidence

(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu707 delivered on December 22, 1987; 96Da462 delivered on June 13, 1997, etc.). Defendant B is the Plaintiff.