1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 250,541,925 and KRW 249,313,642 from April 15, 2020 to June 15, 2020.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Gap evidence Nos. 8 (including each number), the facts as to the plaintiff's claim can be acknowledged.

The Defendants, after each guarantee agreement of this case, abolished the joint and several guarantee system of the representatives of public agencies, including the Plaintiff, on April 2018, and Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (general principle) 1 of the Terms and Conditions as to each of the above guarantee agreements is null and void.

(2) Any of the following clauses in terms and conditions shall be presumed to be unfair:

1. A clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to customers;

2. A clause which customers are difficult to anticipate in light of all the circumstances, such as the type of transaction under the contract;

3. A clause in terms and conditions concerning the rights and interests of customers which are to be restricted in essential rights under a contract to the extent that the purpose of the contract is not attainable and which falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be null and void:

1. A clause which, without a substantial reason, excludes or limits a customer's defense right, offset right, etc. under the Acts;

2. A clause which deprives customers of the benefit of time given to them without good cause;

3. A clause which unreasonably limits a customer's right to enter into contracts with a third party;

4. It is alleged to the effect that the business operator violated the provisions allowing the disclosure of confidential information of customers known to him in the course of his duties without any justifiable reason, and thus it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's request. However, even if the joint and several surety system of the representative of the corporation was abolished as alleged by the defendants, such circumstance alone does not have any legal basis to deem that the defendant B's expression of intent of joint and several surety for each of the instant guarantee agreements