A. On February 24, 2011, the Defendant’s representative director C entered into a contract to transfer C’s shares and management rights to E with the representative director E of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”) and agreed as follows. The Defendant guaranteed C’s obligations under the instant contract.

Article 3 (Amount of Acceptance) The acquisition value of the number of shares owned (cost) C and one other 48,500 Shares 50,000,000 (Payments, etc.)

1. E shall be paid 150 million won as down payment and intermediate payment on the relevant contract date;

2. E shall pay any balance of KRW 400 million on March 11, 201.

Provided, That the balance may be extended once in consultation with C and E.

B. E remitted KRW 150 million out of the acquisition price under the instant contract to the Defendant’s account at C’s request.

C. On the other hand, on August 18, 2014, E transferred the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff upon the rescission of the instant contract, and notified C of the said assignment of claim on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 4-1 to 8, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1, witness E's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was transferred the claim for the return of the acquisition price of KRW 150 million to E following the rescission of the contract of this case. Therefore, the Defendant, the guarantor, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 150 million and the damages for delay.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the judgment, Eul evidence 2-1, and the purport of the entire pleading in witness Eul's testimony, the contract of this case is acknowledged as having difficulty in achieving the purpose due to the defendant's internal circumstances, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the contract of this case was rescinded by agreement among E and C. The scope of the defendant's guarantee liability also extends to the duty of restoration following the rescission of the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant as the guarantor is the plaintiff as the transferee and the defendant is from Eul.