1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 116,00,000 and KRW 10,000 among them, from August 1, 2014, and KRW 106,000.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of claim determination as to the cause of claim shall be deemed to have been led by the above defendant pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, and it may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs A and C (including various numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 116,00,000 won and 10,000,000 won from August 1, 2014, which is the day following the due date for payment, and as to the remaining 106,00,000 won from August 21, 2014, the day following the due date for payment, Defendant C shall be until December 18, 2015, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, until December 18, 2015, Defendant B shall be liable to pay 5% per annum from January 20, 2016, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. As to the assertion, Defendant C argues that, rather than mediating the purchase and sale of the building of this case to the actual manager or the Plaintiff, Defendant C was merely the representative director employed for business management, and the actual manager was not only D, but also the Plaintiff’s written statement of payment was insufficient to make the Plaintiff’s intimidation. As such, Defendant C asserts that the obligation to return the instant written statement of payment upon the termination of the instant sales contract is against B or D, the contracting party.

B. The above assertion by the defendant C, which was examined as to the judgment, is without any evidence to prove it.

(1) As seen earlier, Defendant C was obligated to pay the instant payment note even if it was not the representative director employed by Defendant C, and Defendant C did not make any other statement of payment of this case, and Defendant C did not make any other statement of payment of this case.