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

2...

(2) On October 26, 201, the Plaintiff Company and the Nonparty Company paid KRW 816,00,000 to the Plaintiff Company in return for the services provided by the Plaintiff Company from January 3, 2010 to October 28, 201, on the ancillary agreement (hereinafter “instant ancillary agreement”).

3. It guarantees that the Plaintiff Company and the Nonparty Company and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff Company KRW 816,00,000 for services specified in the incidental agreement of this case that there is no letter of payment guarantee for the settlement price (the evidence No. 1-1, hereinafter referred to as “instant letter of payment guarantee”).

4. On October 27, 2011, the Convention (MOU) (No. 3-1, hereinafter referred to as the “instant Convention”) mutually cooperates with the Plaintiff Company to receive orders for and carry out the instant business, and the terms and conditions of transactions and detailed methods are to prepare and agree to prepare a separate contract in the future.

* The Plaintiff Company argues that the document Nos. 3 was drawn up on October 26, 201, as in the document Nos. 1 and 2, 201, as in the document Nos. 1 and 4, and that there was a signature or seal of the Defendant on the document No. 4, and that there was no signature or seal of the Defendant on the document No. 1, 2, and 3, which was set up by the Defendant as the representative director. In each document no dispute over the fact that the Defendant was drawn up as the Defendant’s document No. 1, 2, 3, 9, 5, each entry in the document No. 1, 1, 2, 3, 9, 5, the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination conducted by the Plaintiff at the first instance, the result of the Defendant’s personal examination conducted by the Defendant (excluding parts

2. Determination on the claim of the Plaintiff Company

A. Key 1 The Plaintiff Company claimed KRW 816,00,000 and its delay damages against the Defendant based on the instant payment guarantee memorandum.

In this regard, the defendant recognizes that the defendant's seal affixed to the letter of the payment guarantee of this case was affixed with the seal of the defendant, but this is the defendant's seal imprint and the defendant's seal imprint which the plaintiff B et al. used with the defendant.