A. Indication of Claim: On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff guaranteed the obligation to pay the price for the goods under a contract for the supply of money concluded with E (hereinafter “instant contract”) and on August 12, 2017, the price for the goods unpaid as of August 12, 2017 is KRW 120,837,913.

(b) Grounds for recognition: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant D

A. At the time of the instant contract, Defendant D guaranteed the obligation to pay the price for goods under the instant contract by serving in “FE” operated by E at the time of the instant contract, and the fact that the unpaid price for goods as of August 12, 2017 was 120,837,913 does not dispute the parties.

Therefore, pursuant to the guarantee agreement, Defendant D is liable to pay the price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff as the surety, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Defendant D received a decision on Defendant D’s grounds for exemption from liability (i) on the grounds that Defendant D was subject to bankruptcy and exemption from immunity, and Defendant D did not enter the Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation (hereinafter “instant obligation”) in the list of creditors at the time, but did not have been omitted in bad faith, and thus, Defendant D also retired from the instant obligation pursuant to Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”). In fact, Defendant D’s assertion that the instant obligation was also discharged pursuant to Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

The contract term of the instant contract is from April 27, 2015 to April 26, 2016, and the contract term is automatically extended once a year without both termination notice. The Plaintiff supplied the goods to E continuously and on August 12, 2017, the price of the goods unpaid at the time of the last transaction is KRW 120,837,913.

On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E seeking the payment of the above goods, and rendered a favorable judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim based on service by public notice, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Defendant D goes bankrupt as Seoul Central District Court 2015Hadan10847, 2015 10847.