2. The costs of the review are assessed against the defendant.

A. Determination of the judgment subject to a retrial 1) Flad Mutual Savings Banks (hereinafter “ Flad Mutual Savings Banks”)

(2) On February 15, 2011, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the payment of loans as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga342643, and the above court rendered a judgment citing all the claims of the Flaman Mutual Savings Bank. 2) On February 15, 2011, the Defendants appealed against this and appealed as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Na12971. On July 20, 201, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Defendants’ appeals (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on review”).

3) The Defendants filed a second appeal with Supreme Court Decision 201Da66528 Decided October 27, 201. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by the said court’s dismissal of all Defendants’ final appeals. (B) In the judgment subject to a retrial, the judgment subject to a retrial sought loans from Defendant A as a principal debtor against Defendant A, and from Defendant B as a joint surety, the Defendants sought loans under a loan contract as a joint surety. At the time of the instant loan, the Defendants asserted that, ① Defendant A was entitled to the instant loan to the Frad Mutual Savings Bank as the secured obligation, the instant loan obligation was set up against the said Defendant’s land and the 5th class public bath and domination on the ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, on February 19, 2003, Defendant D and D, the purchaser of the instant real estate, and E, the Defendant, at the time of the instant loan to Defendant D and E, were delegated to the Defendant’s employees in charge of the instant loan, 2003.