A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall have full payment of KRW 90,237,455 and KRW 52,290,249 among them from February 18, 2016.

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

1) Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

A) On June 8, 2007, the Plaintiff approved that the basic terms and conditions of bank credit transactions (for corporate use) apply, the amount of KRW 300 million was set at the maturity date on June 3, 2008, and the interest rate fluctuation rate (0.85%). Defendant B guaranteed the above loan obligations within the limit of KRW 58,50,00. 2) February 17, 2016, the balance of the above loan principal as of February 17, 2016 is KRW 52,290,249, interest rate of KRW 5,346,698, and overdue interest rate of KRW 32,60,508.

3) The maximum overdue interest rate applicable to the Plaintiff after January 26, 2015 is 15% per annum. (B) According to the aforementioned facts of recognition, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan of KRW 90,237,455 ( KRW 52,290,290,249, KRW 5296,698, KRW 32,600,508, and the principal of the loan of KRW 52,290,249, and the interest rate of KRW 52,290,000 per annum from February 18, 2016 to the date of full payment, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company to pay KRW 58,50,000,000, out of the above amount.

2. Claims and determination by Defendant B

A. Defendant B’s assertion 1) is the actual representative of the Defendant Company C, and Defendant B is the nominal representative director. Defendant B deceiving Defendant B to obtain a loan due to good credit for the Defendant Company, thereby allowing Defendant B to enter into a joint and several guarantee contract for the said loan obligations. The Plaintiff, as the real representative director, knew or could have known that Defendant B had entered into the said joint and several guarantee contract, and the Plaintiff’s delivery of a duplicate of the reply in this case was revoked. 2) Furthermore, Defendant B entered into the said joint and several guarantee contract due to his deception that the nominal representative director should enter into the said joint and several guarantee contract, and the Plaintiff was also aware of such error.