A. Entrustment agency and performance guarantee insurance contract 1) Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”).

(1) On June 1, 2009, between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a consignment agency contract for the business, etc. of the goods and services of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “instant consignment agency contract”).

A) The instant consignment agency contract was concluded. Defendant E, F, G, H, I, and J are written as joint and several sureties with respect to the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the name and address of each of the said Defendants and their seals are written or presented in the column of joint and several sureties. (2) The Defendant A entered into a performance guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant performance guarantee insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010 to guarantee the payment of the Defendant’s damage liability, etc. based on the instant consignment agency contract. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22190, Jun. 2, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22302, Jun. 1, 2012>

3) In entering into the instant guarantee insurance contract, the Plaintiff and Defendant A agreed to pay the Plaintiff a prior claim for the reimbursement of the insurance money from the insured. In the event that the Plaintiff paid the insurance money due to an insured event, Defendant A agreed to pay the Plaintiff a delayed interest rate from the day after the date of payment of the insurance money to the day of full payment. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

(B) A, C, D, E, F, and K have jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff under the instant guarantee insurance contract. (b) The occurrence of insurance accidents and the Plaintiff’s insurance payment 1) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor paid the Plaintiff’s insurance money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor, from around December 2011, withheld the settlement of claims and obligations with the Defendant from around April 9, 2012, on the grounds that there is suspicion of the Defendant’s unfair business practices, such as the amount of unpaid fees collected by the customer who subscribed to the Defendant A up to 1.4 billion won.