(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in attached Form 1;

(However, it is limited to the part concerning Defendant B).

Article 208 (3) 3 of Civil Procedure Act)

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. On November 19, 201, the Plaintiff, while running interior fishery business, lent KRW 40 million to Defendant B on the due date set on January 18, 201, while the Plaintiff was running interior fishery business, and the Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to borrow money from the said loan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including where there are additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C, a joint and several surety, is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 40 million and the damages for delay.

C. 1) Determination on the defenses 1) Although Defendant C and the Plaintiff defense to the effect that the repayment or settlement of the principal debt was all repaid or extinguished, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, Defendant C’s defense cannot be accepted. 2) Defendant C’s defense that the statute of limitations expired as to the principal debt of this case is a commercial claim due to a loan made by the Plaintiff as a merchant, and as such, the statute of limitations expired more than five years after the due date (as it was a commercial claim due to a loan made by the Plaintiff as a merchant, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be responded to the Plaintiff’s claim.

A claim arising from an act falling under a commercial activity as well as a claim arising from an act falling under a commercial activity for both parties is also a commercial claim to which the extinctive prescription period of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies. Such a commercial activity includes not only the basic commercial activity but also auxiliary commercial activity carried on for merchants' business. Supreme Court Decision 93Da54842 delivered on April 29, 1994.