A. On May 25, 2007, the Plaintiff set KRW 200 million on May 25, 2007, to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) at KRW 200,000,000 on May 25, 2008, the expiration date of the extension period, 3 months of the interest rate + 2.5% per annum, and 21% per annum.

B. Defendant B guaranteed the above loan obligations of Defendant B within the limit of KRW 260 million on the same day.

C. The balance of the principal and interest of the foregoing loan as of July 8, 2014 is KRW 203,228,001 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 99,987,057, interest and delay damages, and KRW 103,240,944.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest amounting to KRW 203,228,01 and the principal amounting to KRW 99,987,057, which is the following day of the above base date, to the day of full payment.

B. As to the assertion by the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company asserts that since D, the former representative director, was declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity on the above loan obligations, the Defendant Company’s liability for the above loan obligations is also exempted.

The facts that D, who served as the representative director of the defendant company from September 25, 2008 to August 13, 2009, was declared bankrupt and granted immunity under the Seoul Central District Court 2012, the 12231 and the 2012Hadan12231, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, it cannot be said that the effect of the declaration of bankruptcy and the decision of immunity granted by the D individual solely on the ground that D serves as the representative director of the Defendant company is exempted from the liability for the above guaranteed liability owed by the D individual upon the above decision of immunity, and it does not affect the Defendant company that is a juristic person. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant company is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's defendants.