A. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Guarantee principal of KRW 170,000,000 and April 26, 2013 (which was extended from April 26, 2012 to April 25, 2014) and the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement was concluded, and the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement was loaned KRW 200,000 from the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Korea Bank”).

(2) On October 21, 2013, as a result of delinquency in the repayment of the principal and interest of loans on October 21, 2013, the Bank requested the Plaintiff to discharge the guaranteed obligation, and on November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff subrogated to the Bank for KRW 171,01,243 and recovered KRW 92,980.

The final damages incurred in relation to the above collection amount are KRW 326,00, and the claims preservation expenses incurred by the plaintiff are KRW 1,903,870.

On the other hand, the rate of delay damages determined by the Plaintiff after the date of subrogation is 12% per annum.

(3) In the first instance court of this case, “A shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 171,922,459 (the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 171,01,243 - the amount of KRW 992,980 (the amount of KRW 1,903,870) with the amount of indemnity, and the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 170,018,263 with the amount of 170,018,263 with the amount of subrogated payment, excluding the amount of recovery, the amount of KRW 171,92,459 (the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 171,01,243 with the amount of indemnity, and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 12, 2013 to March 27, 2014).” The portion as to A was finalized

B. On April 30, 2013, the Intervenor’s credit A issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 946,741,331 to the Intervenor, and on May 2, 2013, a notarial deed recognizing compulsory execution against the said promissory note was drafted.

C. The rehabilitation procedure A against A was commenced on November 7, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma202, but the above court held the rehabilitation procedure on the ground that the value at the time of liquidation of A’s business on January 20, 2014 is obviously higher than that at the time of continuing the business.