1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B and Defendant C, jointly and severally KRW 53,018,789 and KRW 22,065,729 among them.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Claim against Defendant B: Article 208(3) and (2), and Article 150(3) (a) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment made by deeming that the case is one of the parties).

3. Claim against Defendant C: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Claim against Defendant D

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, it is recognized that the plaintiff acquired the claim against the defendant D as shown in the attached Form No. 1, and thus, the defendant D is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money set forth in Paragraph 1-b of this Article.

B. Defendant D raises a defense that the extinctive prescription of the above claim has expired.

However, according to the above evidence, the non-party F Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of loans, promissory notes, etc. against Eul Co., Ltd. (Seoul Central District Court 96da286891) and the judgment of winning was finalized on September 23, 1997, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 23, 1997, and on August 2007, the non-party F Co., Ltd. (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap68799) filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the transfer amount against the defendant D et al. (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap68799) and the winning judgment was final and conclusive on July 17, 2008, and the plaintiff who received the above claim again filed the lawsuit in this case on July 13, 2018, which was ten years after the judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for the acquisition of the claim in this case against the defendant D was suspended.

As such, there is reason to re-appeal the interruption of extinctive prescription, and Defendant D’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.