1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall pay full amounts of KRW 205,400,391 and KRW 103,99,258 among them, from May 29, 2014.

1. Indication of claim;

A. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant A and Defendant B (Guarantee Limit of KRW 16,950,000), a joint and several surety, as the principal obligor, to “a claim for the remainder of the loans under a loan agreement made on December 31, 2008 against Defendant A” and its interest or delay damages claim against Defendant A, a joint and several surety (Guarantee Limit of KRW 16,950,00).

B. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant A, the debtor, for performance as to the remainder of the loans under a credit transaction agreement on February 13, 2008 against Defendant A of Han Bank, which was acquired from Han Bank on June 28, 2013, as to “the remainder of the loans under the credit transaction agreement on February 13, 2008, and interest or delay damages claim thereon.”

2. Applicable provisions;

(a) Defendant A: Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) (a) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment made by deeming that the case is one’s own);

(b) Defendant B: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Decision by public notice)

3. Part of the claim against Defendant B which was partially dismissed

A. In light of the principle of guarantee limit, the guaranteed obligation includes both the principal obligation and its interest, penalty, damages, and other principal obligation within the limit of guarantee limit, unless there are any special circumstances. Meanwhile, since the guaranteed obligation is separate from the principal obligation, any damages for delay arising from the delay of the guaranteed obligation itself shall be borne separately from the guarantee limit amount, and if there is no special agreement on the interest rate on delay of the guaranteed obligation in such case, the transactional obligation shall be governed by the legal rate prescribed in the Commercial Act or the Civil Act, depending on the nature of the transaction. Although the agreed overdue rate on the principal obligation is not applicable as a matter of course, if

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da18955 Decided June 23, 2005).

As of May 27, 2014, Defendant A’s statement as of May 27, 2014, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 2-1, and evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-1.