(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(2) On November 20, 2013, Defendant Company extended loans to Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant loans”). (b)

Article 208 (3) 3 of Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. In the so-called continuous guarantee contract without a fixed period of time, if there is a considerable reason to terminate the guarantee contract as a guarantor, such as the reliance on the principal debtor of the guarantor, it is not desirable in terms of social norms to maintain and continue the guarantee contract as it is. Thus, the guarantor can unilaterally terminate the guarantee contract, except in special circumstances where the other party's creditor, who is the other party, suffers from unexpected damages due to the termination of the contract, under the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002). In addition, if a person who has become a guarantor for the company's obligations due to continuous transactions between the company and a third party, has been forced to retire from the position of the director, it constitutes a case where there is a significant change in the situation at the time of the formation of the guarantee contract, and thus, the guarantee contract can be terminated on such ground (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da1673, May 31, 2002; 2608Da18616, etc.).

(B) As seen below, since the instant guarantee is a collateral guarantee contract, it is different from the Supreme Court Decision 9Da23055 cited by the Plaintiff.

On July 25, 2013, the Defendant Company subscribed to a periodical installment payment to pay 3 million won per month to the Plaintiff under a three-year agreement with the Plaintiff on July 25, 2013, and the said installment payment is secured at the time when the amount was 12 million won as of November 20, 2013.