A. The status of the parties is a corporation established under the Credit Guarantee Fund Act for the purpose of facilitating corporate financing by guaranteeing the debt of an enterprise which lacks security capability and facilitating its own financing. Defendant A is a person who operates the “C” (the trade name was changed to “D”). Defendant B is a person who operates the “E” of a private enterprise for synthetic rubber wholesale and retail business.

B. The Defendants and F public offering financial institutions implement a “corporate purchase financing loan” which provides goods and services to a business entity that purchases goods and services through ordinary business activities consistent with its business purpose in relation to the transaction between the business entity that has obtained a business registration certificate as prescribed by the Regulations on Handling of Enterprise Purchase Funds related to Total Amount Limit Loans. Nonparty F, the representative director of G Co., Ltd. established for printing business, etc. (hereinafter “G”), established a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff from September 6, 2005, and received corporate purchase financing from financial institutions, such as Korea Bank, and the Industrial Bank of Korea, etc. (85% of the guarantee rate). As the above corporate purchase financing scheme was insufficient, it was dependent only on a tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff in the course of a series of processes such as issuance of the Plaintiff’s guarantee and the financial institution’s loan, etc., and made a request for the payment of outstanding amounts, etc. with the Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of the tax invoice and the financial institution’s request for payment.