2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties:

1) With respect to the obligations (e.g., trade finance transactions and the issuance of import letters of credit) against the non-party Lanex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) (hereinafter “non-party company”), the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the limit of KRW 650,000 on Nov. 25, 1998 and USD 650,000 on Nov. 25, 1998 (hereinafter “each guarantee of this case”). After that, Defendant 1 increased the limit of guarantee over a number of occasions, Defendant 2,340,000,000 in addition to the obligations arising from the loan transaction of corporate purchase fund, and thereafter increased the limit of guarantee to KRW 650,00 on Jun. 28, 2001.

2) On August 24, 2005, the non-party bank transferred the credit to the non-party company specialized in Bluu Asset-backed securitization to the non-party company as indicated in the [Attachment 1] List of Claim Claim (1], and notified the non-party company of the above assignment of credit on August 31, 2005.

3) On April 30, 2009, a limited liability company specialized in Bluu Asset-backed securitization transferred the bonds listed in the [Attachment 2] List of Claim Claim(2) among the above loan claims that it acquired from the non-party bank to the Plaintiff, and notified the non-party company of the transfer of the above credit on May 27, 2009.

B. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, a limited collateral guarantor for the non-party company, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000, which the Plaintiff claimed as a part of the claim for payment within the limit of the guarantee limit of the Defendants among the claim for the transfer of this case.

2. Determination as to Defendant 2 and 3 (Supreme Court and the Nonparty of the appellate court’s judgment)’s assertion, etc.

A. As to the defense of exemption from guarantee liability

The above defendants asserted that the non-party bank exempted the above defendants' guaranteed liability around June 14, 1999.

According to each of the records, Gap 2, 6 through 10, Eul 1 through 14, the non-party bank concluded a collateral guarantee contract with the defendant 1 on June 14, 1999, which is subsequent to each of the above guarantees, to increase the guarantee amount to 1,40,000,000 US dollars 2,60,000, and the above defendants did not demand additional guarantee guarantee amount from the above defendants while continuing to increase the guarantee amount, the non-party 1 did not demand additional guarantee guarantee amount from the above defendants; the non-party bank did not demand additional guarantee guarantee amount from the above defendants; the non-party 2 did not demand the credit transaction agreement term under the existing trade finance of the non-party company from June 7, 199 to June 7, 200; and the non-party 2 did not request the creditor's right to claim the loan from the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 on June 7, 200, respectively.

However, the above evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above statements, i.e., ① increase in the limit of guarantee amount of Defendant 1’s extended to 1,400,000 U.S. dollars 2,60,000 on June 14, 1999, and the non-party bank extended the limit of guarantee amount of the existing import letter of credit issuance to the non-party company, and the shortage of guarantee amount was added to the existing limit of guarantee amount of Defendant 1. It was not intended to substitute for the above Defendants’ guarantee liability. However, it is extremely exceptional that the non-party bank, which is a financial institution, exempted the above Defendants’ joint and several liability by the non-party company or Defendant 1 for the above Defendants’ joint and several liability on behalf of the above Defendants, without any special circumstance such as the above Defendants’ receipt of adequate collateral from the above Defendants’ joint and several surety liability on behalf of the above Defendants. ② The above fact that Defendant 1’s guarantee amount was not recorded in the above 20-party bank’s signature and seal guarantee agreement as well.

Therefore, the above defendants' defense is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that guarantee liability does not extend to individual transactions under a new transaction agreement

In addition, the above Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed each guarantee of this case’s trade finance and import L/C transaction. After the maturity of each guarantee of this case’s each guarantee of this case, the non-party bank entered into a new transaction agreement with the non-party company and continued individual transactions on the basis of this case’s guarantee. Thus, they asserted that individual transactions under such new transaction agreement do not fall under the above Defendants’ guarantee liability as it is separate from each guarantee of this case’s each other. However, the above Defendants agreed to limit the non-party company’s current and future obligations to the non-party bank due to the trade financial transaction, import L/C issuing transaction (the entry of the non-party company). In light of the meaning of limited collateral guarantee, the non-party company agreed to guarantee the non-party company’s existing and future obligations to the non-party bank “all obligations” due to the transaction of “trade financial transaction and import L/C issuing”, the above Defendants are liable for guarantee liability within the limit of

C. As to the assertion that each of the instant guarantees has terminated the guarantee contract as a guarantee without setting the period

In addition, the above defendants can designate a settlement term for the settlement term of guarantee of the non-party bank in a future form after the lapse of three years from the date of the guarantee agreement. Thus, unless the guarantor does not designate the settlement term for the settlement term for the settlement of the settlement of the settlement term by written notification, the guarantor bears the responsibility for the guarantee regardless of the prescription, so the provisions of the non-party bank related to the future designation type seems to be a clerical error in the terms of Article 9 subparagraph 6 (Article 9) of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act (Article 9 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions) "a contract for the purpose of continuous occurrence of the settlement of claims, which aims at unfairly short or long, or implied extension or renewal of the period so that customers may unfairly suffer disadvantage," and each of the above guarantees in this case constitutes a continuous guarantee without a fixed period of time, and thus, the guarantor can unilaterally terminate the guarantee contract of this case on June 2, 199, and it is not necessary for the above defendants to conclude the guarantee contract of this case as well as to the remainder of the guarantee of non-party 16.

3. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

A. As to the defense against the violation of the good faith principle

The defendants asserted that the non-party bank did not notify not only the non-party company that is the principal debtor but also the defendants who are joint and several sureties, of the extension of the term or the extension of the limit, and did not confirm the intent of the defendants, and that the defendant 3 did not take any measures when the defendant 3 reached an agreement with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, etc. on the real estate by taking a preservative measure against the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, filing a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, etc.

B. As to the defense that each of the instant guarantees was extinguished by prescription as a specific collateral security

In addition, the defendants defense that each of the above guarantees guarantees the obligations of the non-party company due to transactions under the credit transaction agreement dated November 25, 1998 and the credit transaction agreement dated February 2, 1999. Since the above transaction maturity was filed five years after June 7, 1999, the lawsuit of this case was extinguished by the statute of limitations, the guaranteed obligations of the defendants were extinguished by the statute of limitations. However, as seen earlier, each of the above guarantees is limited collateral guarantee, and therefore, the above defense is without merit.

C. As to the assertion that the interruption of prescription due to the participation in composition procedures does not extend to the guarantor

In addition, the Defendants asserted that the interruption of prescription due to the participation in the Plaintiff’s composition procedure does not extend to the Defendants, who are the guarantor, and thus, each of the guaranteed obligations of this case expired, but the interruption of prescription due to the participation in composition procedure also extends to the guarantor. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Han-tae (Presiding Judge) Training of Mansung