1. Defendant (Appointed Party) shall pay KRW 223,080,80 to the Plaintiff jointly with the designated parties.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2008 and August 7, 2009, the designated parties B entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff as follows. The Defendant (the appointed parties; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), the appointed parties, C, and D limited the designated parties’ respective loans owed to the Plaintiff of the designated parties B.

The agreement on the due date of the terms and conditions of loans of the credit department (won) shall be 230,00,000,000, annually 11% per annum on March 24, 2013, 201:3% per annum on March 24, 2013, and 23% per annum on March 24, 2013, Defendant, C, and D: 322,000,000 general loans of KRW 15,000,000 on August 7, 2009, annually 11% per annum on August 7, 2013: 30,000,000 Defendant: 19,50,0000

B. Of the Plaintiff’s respective loan claims (hereinafter “instant loan claims”), claims based on the agreement dated August 7, 2009 were fully repaid with the principal, interest, and various expenses, etc., and claims based on the agreement dated March 24, 2008 remain in KRW 223,080,800 as of September 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (each number distribution), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed parties are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 223,080,80 to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant, etc.’s assertion that the Defendant exempted the obligation for the joint and several several liability and the selector D, after September 30, 201, expressed to the Plaintiff the intent of rescinding the contract for the joint and several liability, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Appointor exempted the obligation for the joint and several liability with respect to D by the original subrogated repayment of KRW 65 million of the Appointor D, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant’s assertion on the extinction of the obligation for the joint and several liability due to the repayment and determination of the obligation for the repayment, and the Defendant received all the amount of KRW 322,00,000,000, which is the limit of the collateral guarantee (hereinafter “instant real property”).