A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall be jointly and severally with D in KRW 1,83,395,019 and KRW 1,693,746,551 among them.

(However, on September 2, 1996, the creditor's "the plaintiff is deemed to be the plaintiff," and the "debtor" is deemed to be the defendant corporation (hereinafter referred to as "A"), the house at issue (hereinafter referred to as "house at issue"), the house at issue, and the house at issue (hereinafter referred to as "house at issue"), each service by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That the plaintiff shall be deemed to have commenced the period from April 18, 1997, while the plaintiff shall be deemed to have commenced the period from which the payment at issue was made on September 10, 1996, in the case of the payment at issue of KRW 32,05,732 on April 25, 199, the date of subrogation shall be deemed to have been made on April 25, 197.

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the facts recorded in the grounds for the claim are recognized.

Therefore, Defendant B, jointly and severally with Defendant A, as the principal obligor, has the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of subrogated, delay, total amount of KRW 1,833,395,01, total amount of subrogated and late payment damages jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant B, as total of KRW 554,053,321, and the remainder of subrogated amount of KRW 500,792,804, the agreed interest rate of 16% per annum from April 18, 1997 to September 14, 1999, the agreement rate of 14% per annum from September 15, 1999 to November 5, 2003, the agreement rate of 14% per annum from November 6, 2003, and delay damages calculated by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 6, 2003 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, Defendant B, a representative liquidator, was granted immunity in the Cheongju District Court Decision 2011Da1714, and the 201Hadan1714, Defendant B, claiming that the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the above debt. Thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is not exempt from the above debt to Defendant B solely because E has a separate legal personality and E is granted immunity. Thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is not acceptable.

4. Defendant C

(a) Nos. 1 and 1.