A. As to KRW 137,592,726 and KRW 34,865,093 among Defendant A, Defendant A shall be from August 13, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

(However, "creditor" is "Plaintiff", and "debtor" is "Defendant". The net D guarantees limited to KRW 45,500,000,000 for the obligation of Defendant A. Meanwhile, the lawsuit against F was withdrawn on the other hand). 2. Judgment by public notice of claim against Defendant A (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. The above Defendants are acknowledged to have the cause of the claim under each of the statements (including the paper numbers) and the entire purport of the pleading against Defendant B and Defendant C. Thus, the above Defendants are acknowledged to have the cause of claim under Article 1-B of the Disposition No. 1.

have the obligation to pay the money set forth in the subsection.

Meanwhile, the above defendants asserts that the claims asserted by the plaintiff were extinguished by the lapse of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription.

However, according to the evidence evidence evidence No. 7, the instant lawsuit was brought for the interruption of extinctive prescription in the loan case, which was rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2005Da156794, and the judgment of the instant case was rendered on August 31, 2005 and became final and conclusive around that time, and the instant application for the payment order was filed on February 12, 2014 for which ten years have not passed thereafter.

Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired is rejected.