1. Defendant B’s KRW 20 million and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from August 31, 2008 to June 14, 2018, and the following day.

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

A. 20 million won, which was to be paid by issuing a cash custody certificate as of June 21, 2008 with the indication of the claim, and damages for delay pursuant to the Civil Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings therefor.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. The basic facts (1) B, around 2006, acquired KRW 100 million by deceiving the Plaintiff with money that is used to acquire the farm at Russia.

[Then, the Plaintiff was indicted for fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months on June 24, 2011 (Seoul District Court Decision 2011No. 14). (2) B) on June 21, 2008, and the Plaintiff on June 21, 2008, as such, for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of money and delay damages.

7. 160 million won until 30.30,000 won, and the same year.

8. By March 31, 31, the cash custody certificate to pay KRW 40 million (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) was stamped on the hand to pay KRW 200 million.

(3) Defendant C is his husband and wife B.

Although Defendant C’s seal is affixed to the cash custody certificate of this case as follows, all letters, including name, resident registration number, and telephone number, are not written.

D B H COE F G G G G G G L L n [based on recognition] without dispute, entry of evidence A 1 to 4, result of the appraiser P’s written appraisal, the purport of the entire pleadings

B. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant contract amount.

(2) According to the records in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (A) or (1), the fact that Eul's wife Q Q did not demand the plaintiff that Q Q Q was jointly and severally guaranteed by his wife and the defendant C's seal was affixed to the cash custody certificate of this case in his mind can be acknowledged.

I reviewed that Defendant C’s writing did not exist in the cash custody certificate of this case.

Plaintiff

It sees that Defendant C’s seal is stamped.